Dpreview watermarking images of cameras

"RichA" wrote in message
...
How can they watermark camera images of cameras they don't yet have in
hand, images supplied by the mfg or taken directly from the mfg's
website? Or better yet, why do they?

I wonder that too, many of the images are from the OEM makers, so DP is in
effect claiming copyright. Images in their reviews are likely from the DP
studio, as They all show the same umbrella reflections in the photos. But to
watermark a Nikon provided image is just wrong. The only logic is to prevent
hotlinked URLs, but hotlinks are easily blocked with .htaccess or other
server-side methods.

wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
How can they watermark camera images of cameras they don't yet have in
hand, images supplied by the mfg or taken directly from the mfg's
website? Or better yet, why do they?

I wonder that too, many of the images are from the OEM makers, so DP is in
effect claiming copyright. Images in their reviews are likely from the DP
studio, as They all show the same umbrella reflections in the photos. But to
watermark a Nikon provided image is just wrong. The only logic is to prevent
hotlinked URLs, but hotlinks are easily blocked with .htaccess or other
server-side methods.




Publishers in general copyright their magazines and web sites to stop
other publishers taking advertisements, reviews and editorials and using
them in their own publications. I know I wouldn't hesitate to sue anyone
who poached my advertisers and then tried to steal their ad off me.

Why would it bother anyone who wasn't intent on stealing the images? If
they came from Nikon or whoever, surely logic would tell you to get them
from the same source?

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
How can they watermark camera images of cameras they don't yet have in
hand, images supplied by the mfg or taken directly from the mfg's
website? Or better yet, why do they?

I wonder that too, many of the images are from the OEM makers, so DP is
in effect claiming copyright. Images in their reviews are likely from the
DP studio, as They all show the same umbrella reflections in the photos.
But to watermark a Nikon provided image is just wrong. The only logic is
to prevent hotlinked URLs, but hotlinks are easily blocked with .htaccess
or other server-side methods.




Publishers in general copyright their magazines and web sites to stop
other publishers taking advertisements, reviews and editorials and using
them in their own publications. I know I wouldn't hesitate to sue anyone
who poached my advertisers and then tried to steal their ad off me.

Why would it bother anyone who wasn't intent on stealing the images? If
they came from Nikon or whoever, surely logic would tell you to get them
from the same source?

True. I just wondered why they wouldn't just post them as is since Nikon
obviously meant them for public consumption?

"RichA" wrote in message
...

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
How can they watermark camera images of cameras they don't yet have in
hand, images supplied by the mfg or taken directly from the mfg's
website? Or better yet, why do they?

I wonder that too, many of the images are from the OEM makers, so DP is
in effect claiming copyright. Images in their reviews are likely from
the DP studio, as They all show the same umbrella reflections in the
photos. But to watermark a Nikon provided image is just wrong. The only
logic is to prevent hotlinked URLs, but hotlinks are easily blocked with
.htaccess or other server-side methods.




Publishers in general copyright their magazines and web sites to stop
other publishers taking advertisements, reviews and editorials and using
them in their own publications. I know I wouldn't hesitate to sue anyone
who poached my advertisers and then tried to steal their ad off me.

Why would it bother anyone who wasn't intent on stealing the images? If
they came from Nikon or whoever, surely logic would tell you to get them
from the same source?

True. I just wondered why they wouldn't just post them as is since Nikon
obviously meant them for public consumption?

The images are not on Nikon's (or Canon, Pentax et al) public webpages. The
images are media files for publishing, ad layouts and store POS use. The
watermark with dpreview only makes sense to reduce hotlinking images, but
the images would be copyrighted to Nikon etc. I guess DP review just runs
them through an automatic action in Photoshop, as they (DP) do take some
product shots in their studio.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:07:00 -0500, "Nomen Nescio" wrote:
:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Jurgen" wrote in message
: ...
: wrote:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ...
: How can they watermark camera images of cameras they don't yet have in
: hand, images supplied by the mfg or taken directly from the mfg's
: website? Or better yet, why do they?
:
: I wonder that too, many of the images are from the OEM makers, so DP is
: in effect claiming copyright. Images in their reviews are likely from
: the DP studio, as They all show the same umbrella reflections in the
: photos. But to watermark a Nikon provided image is just wrong. The only
: logic is to prevent hotlinked URLs, but hotlinks are easily blocked with
: .htaccess or other server-side methods.
:
:
:
:
: Publishers in general copyright their magazines and web sites to stop
: other publishers taking advertisements, reviews and editorials and using
: them in their own publications. I know I wouldn't hesitate to sue anyone
: who poached my advertisers and then tried to steal their ad off me.
:
: Why would it bother anyone who wasn't intent on stealing the images? If
: they came from Nikon or whoever, surely logic would tell you to get them
: from the same source?
:
: True. I just wondered why they wouldn't just post them as is since Nikon
: obviously meant them for public consumption?
:
: The images are not on Nikon's (or Canon, Pentax et al) public webpages. The
: images are media files for publishing, ad layouts and store POS use. The
: watermark with dpreview only makes sense to reduce hotlinking images, but
: the images would be copyrighted to Nikon etc. I guess DP review just runs
: them through an automatic action in Photoshop, as they (DP) do take some
: product shots in their studio.

The purpose may be to prove that they actually had the images as of a certain
date.

Bob