Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:54:54 +1000, "D-Mac"
wrote:


"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
.. .

To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
pretentiously.


...bravo the adverb! (Also the thought...).

cg

The whole idea of a watermqark is to identify - set aside as uniquely
different, a printed work. At the same time it announces to the world that
the owner seeks protection from image thieves.

Pretentious? What is pretending about the purpose of a watermark.?

There are those who say it "defaces" an otherwise nice piece. These people
are never likely to be converted to paying customers. In fact they are more
likely to steal images without markings on them.so why take notice of what
they say?

If dishonest people (Some of whom have given out advise in this thread)
didn't steal other people's images, there would be no need to protect them
in the first place.

....did you read Mr. Cooper's statement? It's pretty
concise...especially the last sentence...

cg