If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
"zorro" wrote in message ... Hello there, My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one's heard of her in the art world. We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark. Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. On the other hand, some people don't like hanging around waiting for Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
OG wrote:
Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest. IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
John J wrote: OG wrote: Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest. IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source. Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image's progress through the world. -- Frank ess |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:42:54 -0800, "Frank ess"
wrote: John J wrote: OG wrote: Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest. IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source. Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image's progress through the world. The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a **** how much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it 'free to everybody'. If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it's yours but even more making it unusable. Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
Dave wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:42:54 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote: John J wrote: OG wrote: Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest. IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source. Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image's progress through the world. The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a **** how much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it 'free to everybody'. If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it's yours but even more making it unusable. Dave The question had to do with "pretentious", didn't it? "Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your "simple truth", don't they? -- Frank ess |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:51:07 -0800, "Frank ess"
wrote: The question had to do with "pretentious", didn't it? "Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your "simple truth", don't they? True - had to use a dictionary to confirm the meaning of the word (although it is obviously an auxiliary derived from pretend). Is it pretentious to reply to something in another language than your home language when not being100% sure of the meaning of a specific word? I am not a regular reader of this group (in fact 1st time he-) Only a passer-by. There is of course the possibility your answer impressed the rest of the contributors, but over here it only evoked a smile. Keep well Dave http://kuns.fotopic.net/p53776192.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
In uk.rec.photo.misc OG wrote:
"zorro" wrote in message ... Hello there, My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one's heard of her in the art world. We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark. Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. But it's trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that's pointless. On the other hand, some people don't like hanging around waiting for Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off. Quite, flash is definitely a negative pointer as far as I'm concerned. -- Chris Green |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
wrote in message ... In uk.rec.photo.misc OG wrote: "zorro" wrote in message ... Hello there, My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one's heard of her in the art world. We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark. Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images. But it's trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that's pointless. right click | Save Picture As ... compared to Alt + Prt Scr, Win, All Programs, Accessories, Paint, click . . . . Ctrl+V, File | Save |*#*|enter picture name |tab| 'J' |tab| Save Not difficult; but not necessarily 'trivial' either. *#* represents a navigation to My Documents | My Pictures |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection? | John McWilliams | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 6th 09 03:59 PM |
|GG| Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection? | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 6th 09 02:14 PM |
Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection? | Mike Coon[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 6th 09 11:48 AM |
Copyright / Protection of digital photos | Tom Thackrey | Digital Photography | 0 | December 10th 06 04:13 AM |