20 replies to this topic

[Miguel]

As it is an actually problem - i suggest to increase the watermarks on ALL pics posted by BM like shown at my example (can be made transparent also).

This will make it much more difficult to use stolen pics at other websites and on other forums. The watermark used at the moment is a joke - i remove it with photoshop in a minute....  Removing a watermark like shown here will cost much more work for a thief.

Attached Images

• 

Edited by Miguel, 14 April 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[diamonddog]

really useful information…. but pointless without telling us how to do it as most have no idea…… ok so I have no idea

[vb-23454]

and don't forget not to put the water makes of the good stuff  

[Eroticadventure]

DD one of the BM's recommended using the software at : http://www.watermark-image.com
I have'nt tried it yet....... so hope it helps you.

[Twoshots]

     


Just having a play with some watermarks.

Difficult to give advice on how to do it, as in most cases depends what image Editor your using.

Think its best in thinking what is the objective behind water marking an image. It does not prevent its theft.

The object is to reduce its desirability or re-use value. So this is my thinking.

Make your image you upload to any server as small as possible.  The above are 350 pixels at their longest edge.
There is no need to upload at more than 72 dpi resolution.  The above were edited and prepared for upload to the server in Adobe Lightroom at 30dpi. Don't give anyone more quality than for Your intended purpose.
Of course they can be enlarged, but this further degrades quality and therefore limits other usage.
Why not make your pics BW before upload. If a pirate website steals them then it reduces what they can be used for...example box standard thumb nail of girls on web page doesn't look quite right if all the other thumbnails are colour  and a few are Black and white.

Having a thought like, but if you go down the watermarking route, perhaps use something different than your forum name. If a hero prints off or emails the image to one of the girls then you haven't directly linked an image to every other bit of text or photo you have uploaded. Or historically linked it to you even after you may have changed your screen name.

Edited by Twoshots, 14 April 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Miguel]

As told - there is a software that automatic can put watermarks in every uploaded pic. This software is just used here - it should only increase the watermarks (position and more repeats).

[Twoshots]

.

Edited by Twoshots, 14 April 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[deepthroat]

My question is simple: why does anyone give a toot if their pictures are stolen and used on another site?

I used to bootleg concerts when I was in my youth. In 1980 I bought (what at the time was) a VERY expensive Walkman Pro that had stereo recording inputs, and (2) Aiwa shotgun mikes. The whole setup was about $650. That would be nearly $1750 in today's value, so you get the idea - it was a pretty pricey little rig to make concert bootlegs. I took it and made recordings of Peter Gabriel, the first Phil Collins solo tour, Genesis, U2 on the "War" tour, Kiss (with Queensryche opening for them on their first-ever national tour!) and dozens of other artists.

Recently a bootleg CD turned up on the market that made use of my original master tapes from one of the shows I recorded in California. Am I angry? NO! I'm actually sorta tickled that something I made is getting general circulation and others are enjoying the fruits of my labor.

With that said, I understand that some of our serious photographers would be upset about their art being appropriated. But c'mon - most of us aren't photographers, and if we are, we definitely aren't artists! Bumblebee is the example that springs to mind (along with Snapper and a few others) that are true artistes with a lens and who's work deserves protection. But I'm certainly not in that league, and if some asshole wants to rip my photo off and use it to sell his dodgy website, well.... I'm actually sorta flattered that my humble little snap has a life beyond that which I purposed it for.

So with that said - is this really such a big deal? Does it merit all the concern or is everyone just jumping on a silly bandwagon?

Edited by deepthroat, 14 April 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[transgirls]

deepthroat, on 14 April 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

My question is simple: why does anyone give a toot if their pictures are stolen and used on another site?

I used to bootleg concerts when I was in my youth. In 1980 I bought (what at the time was) a VERY expensive Walkman Pro that had stereo recording inputs, and (2) Aiwa shotgun mikes. The whole setup was about $650. That would be nearly $1750 in today's value, so you get the idea - it was a pretty pricey little rig to make concert bootlegs. I took it and made recordings of Peter Gabriel, the first Phil Collins solo tour, Genesis, U2 on the "War" tour, Kiss (with Queensryche opening for them on their first-ever national tour!) and dozens of other artists.

Recently a bootleg CD turned up on the market that made use of my original master tapes from one of the shows I recorded in California. Am I angry? NO! I'm actually sorta tickled that something I made is getting general circulation and others are enjoying the fruits of my labor.

With that said, I understand that some of our serious photographers would be upset about their art being appropriated. But c'mon - most of us aren't photographers, and if we are, we definitely aren't artists! Bumblebee is the example that springs to mind (along with Snapper and a few others) that are true artistes with a lens and who's work deserves protection. But I'm certainly not in that league, and if some asshole wants to rip my photo off and use it to sell his dodgy website, well.... I'm actually sorta flattered that my humble little snap has a life beyond that which I purposed it for.

So with that said - is this really such a big deal? Does it merit all the concern or is everyone just jumping on a silly bandwagon?

One word: ego.

[Twoshots]

If someone wishes to profit from my work beyond the intent to which I have provided, then I expect to get paid from them. Once I have granted permission.

One word: Business.

Edited by Twoshots, 14 April 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Twoshots]

Quote

Recently a bootleg CD turned up on the market that made use of my original master tapes from one of the shows I recorded in California. Am I angry? NO!

How can you be angry about something you already stole. It would be the band and the management of them who have that right.

[transgirls]

.

Edited by transgirls, 14 April 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Twoshots]

No not really...I have chosen to place my pictures here.

[deepthroat]

Twoshots, on 14 April 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

How can you be angry about something you already stole. It would be the band and the management of them who have that right.

Does that then mean that you have paid the models and have releases signed by them? Otherwise, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say you've "stolen" their images just as clearly as I've "stolen" the live performances.

Since neither you or I took the original material with the intent to make any money off them, it's hard to call either "stolen" - more like we are both fans and wanted to preserve someone else's image for posterity.

I should note that my recordings were never sold (at least not by me) for any monetary gain. I used them to trade with other fans for copies of shows they had recorded themselves. Back in the 80's, this was common practice with hardcore fans - if you made a good fan tape you only traded it for other similar content. Hardcore fans prided themselves on not selling - that was bootlegging, and ripped off the artists that we loved.

So again - if you've not paid the model and are capitalizing on her image by getting rep points here, it's about the same as the trading of my concert tapes back in the day. Or so thinks I!  

[deepthroat]

Twoshots, on 14 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

If someone wishes to profit from my work beyond the intent to which I have provided, then I expect to get paid from them. Once I have granted permission.

A caveat to my last point, all that goes out the window if you paid the girl for the right to take photos. As I never do (I've never paid for a girl's image and never will) then I really don't "own" that image. If you did pay specifically to photograph her, then I withdraw my argument.

But if you didn't pay the girl, and don't have a release from her, then what rights do you have to be paid for her image? I've not seen your work, but again - to my earlier point - some of us are artists, and artists do deserve protection from someone else making money off their art. But most of us aren't artists. We're mongers that like to take a few holiday snaps to show off and earn some rep points. As such, I certainly don't think mine deserve protection.

Edited by deepthroat, 14 April 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Twoshots]

Any photograph I have taken that has been posted on this forum I have 100 per cent right to do so. I have never posted anything that I did not have if required a model or property release.

With reference to the Boot leg recording scenario....It is theft, it is copyright infringement. The bands receive no income from it. As its not my creative product, I won't defend it.
But you will find that anyone who works in the creative industries is most protective over their work, and rightly so.

I will use example, and if BM concerned objects I will edit post.

But if Cheynee publishes his Book chapters on this forum, and then someone copies them, and sells them as their own,...would you defend that ? There would be no difference in that action than   doing the same to someones photographic input.

Edited by Twoshots, 16 April 2012 - 03:55 AM.

[Twoshots]

Quote

As I never do (I've never paid for a girl's image and never will) then I really don't "own" that image

You own the copy right to that image.  It is its "usage' that necessitates the model release form.

[deepthroat]

Again then - if you have used her image and want financial renumeration for someone else using it:

Quote

If someone wishes to profit from my work beyond the intent to which I have provided, then I expect to get paid from them.

Then it would seem you are in violation as you don't have any model's release on file.

I would agree though that as a commercial photographer, you do have reason to be concerned about the appropriation of your art (with or without a model release) by someone else for commercial gain. You, BumbleBee, Snapper - not the guys this question is posed for. Was I unclear in that this question is directed at those who ARE NOT artists? Stop being so bloody minded!  
Lastly, I've actually spoken to many bands and managers over the years, and almost 100% have agreed that the taping of shows by fans is NOT a concern of theirs, never has been and never will be. It is the COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION of those recordings that concerns them. I'm not a copyright expert, so I cannot say for certain whether copying a live performance for non-commercial purposes is a violation  of copyright, but I do understand the point you are trying to make.

Ok, now I'm the one being "bloody minded". Can we kiss and makeup now?

[Twoshots]

Quote

Then it would seem you are in violation as you don't have any model's release on file.

Really. Please explain.  Or except that I have violated nobody's rights.

Can make up.... Its not an argument. But it is a subject matter I'm well versed in.  All I ensure is that I am not placed at any personal risk through the images I post.
Its up to every individual to ensure..or not that they have protected themselves as best possible, within reason. Up to every individual how they operate.

Edited by Twoshots, 16 April 2012 - 03:55 AM.

[Twoshots]

Quote

presumably the forum claims ownership of everything posted - unless specifically protected.

One reason to keep a copy of the recently stated Forums Photo Policy.

Edited by Twoshots, 14 April 2012 - 04:49 PM.