| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2010 09:11:34 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge. |
That seems reasonable if not too hard to impliment, and I think the best suggestion I've seen for a default watermark is the link to the user's profile page, such as Copyright © username.DPChallenge.com -- takes someone right to the contact information in case they want to arrange to use it legally.
It would be good to have the text available in black, gray, and white type and the ability to choose on the individual photo page, with a default setting on the My Preferences page. I notice that Shutterstock has an option for moving the mark up or down a fixed number of pixels above or below the center, another good option if not too hard to code. It seems they use a standard mark which is translucent (about 20% gray) on all pictures. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 02:50:40 PM · #52 |
*bump* for those that might have missed it until now...
|
|
|
|
01/29/2010 03:08:04 PM · #53 |
| Sounds like a good idea to me, found my Simply Red picture splashed all over various pages on Stumble Upon. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 03:39:46 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge. |
That seems reasonable if not too hard to impliment, and I think the best suggestion I've seen for a default watermark is the link to the user's profile page, such as Copyright © username.DPChallenge.com -- takes someone right to the contact information in case they want to arrange to use it legally.
It would be good to have the text available in black, gray, and white type and the ability to choose on the individual photo page, with a default setting on the My Preferences page. I notice that Shutterstock has an option for moving the mark up or down a fixed number of pixels above or below the center, another good option if not too hard to code. It seems they use a standard mark which is translucent (about 20% gray) on all pictures. |
This would be a great option.. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 04:00:46 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge. |
That seems reasonable if not too hard to impliment, and I think the best suggestion I've seen for a default watermark is the link to the user's profile page, such as Copyright © username.DPChallenge.com -- takes someone right to the contact information in case they want to arrange to use it legally.
It would be good to have the text available in black, gray, and white type and the ability to choose on the individual photo page, with a default setting on the My Preferences page. I notice that Shutterstock has an option for moving the mark up or down a fixed number of pixels above or below the center, another good option if not too hard to code. It seems they use a standard mark which is translucent (about 20% gray) on all pictures. |
This would be a great option.. |
I second this! members get 3 options, registered users get 1. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 06:02:05 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge.
i think there should be a Watermark Design Challenge. |
I think the combination of this and what Azrifel suggested about letting photographers upload a pre-watermarked copy of their entry should please just about everyone. I don't like the member requirements, unless photographers will have an option to change the watermark from the default upon paying to be a member. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 10:06:25 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by lyn100:
Sounds like a good idea to me, found my Simply Red picture splashed all over various pages on Stumble Upon. |
I'm not sure exactly, but I don't think this is designed to stop that kind of thing. StumbleUpon is a site that basically allows users to point to things they think are cool. It's not the same kind of thing as 'stealing' like downloading and posting pics to a stock photo site as their own. StumbleUpon is not about taking credit for the stuff, just saying 'look what I saw!' and pointing to the original content.
I could be wrong about that, but the watermark thing probably won't change that at all.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image. |
But not to alter it. |
I also like best the option of a big DPC and a small link to the username underneath it. Of course, I won't likely use it, but I still think it's the best option.
I was thinking about the above line of reasoning and I find it unusual that there is an argument against just a simple DPC. I spend a fair bit of time combing google images for school projects and ideas for this or for that. Most of the time, I see watermarks like fotalia.net or shutterstock or whatever.
When I see such watermarks, I do NOT assume that the pic was taken by Fotalia.net or by shutterstock. I merely assume that this is where the image was displayed. I think it is silly to say that DPC can't put their name on it because it was not taken by them. If they want to take action to provide the option of protecting your images, I don't see anything ethically wrong with them using their own name for reasons of convenience. |
|
|
|
01/29/2010 11:45:47 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge.
i think there should be a Watermark Design Challenge. |
I think the combination of this and what Azrifel suggested about letting photographers upload a pre-watermarked copy of their entry should please just about everyone. I don't like the member requirements, unless photographers will have an option to change the watermark from the default upon paying to be a member. |
i would imagine the slickest way to architect this would be to make the image/watermark merge dynamic, meaning that the presentation image is generated on the fly, combining the challenge entry file with the appropriate watermark file (which would be whatever the member specified). |
|
|
|
01/30/2010 12:08:17 AM · #59 |
The original and only purpose of the watermarking agenda is to hobble those who steal the \"perpetually displayed\" images from this site. From this site and this site only. Understand that although the underlying image may be yours, you had forfeited your right to determine how it is displayed \"on this site\" as soon as you uploaded it as a challenge entry. It is a unilateral agreement designed to ensure the challenge history remains wholly populated. It benefits Langdon, the owner of this site, as it binds your underlying image into an indefinite advertising agreement. It is a marriage in which you are stuck.
As the frequency of theft from this site increases, it acts to undermine the validity of this unilateral agreement. Is it reasonable to expect advertising license where no clear provisions are outlined to protect the images other than a copyright \"statement\" which is not part of the image itself? Where no \"reasonable\" compensation to the contributor is offered? Was reasonable effort made to ensure you understand you are entering this agreement at the time of uploading? Were you prompted to opt in or out of this agreement at the time of uploading a challenge entry? Did you understand the agreement and the permanence it implies?
Oh well, that will be cracked I\'m sure.
In the meantime.
Those who do not want to have DPC watermark historical challenge entries are also those who place little value upon copyright by encouraging the haphazard display and redistribution of your property. It is that simple.
There should be one watermark for all the historical challenge entries identifying the image as one that was entrusted to DPC and DPC only. No personal watermarks should be on the entries as the issue has never been the ownership of the image but rather the responsibility of DPC binding your image into a never ending advertising contact. This is where the fault is and what needs to be remedied. Although the guilt partially falls upon those who steal historical challenge entries, it equally falls upon the advertiser who didn\'t take reasonable precautions to uphold the usage agreement in the first place. The agreement binds the contributor but not the offender? hmmmmm
Place a consistent DPC watermark in one spot and I\'ll assure you that you will not notice after a while. Place a variety of individual watermarks and it will look crap. Place none and you have just enabled DPC to become a free stock photo library.
Lastly, this idea of a community consensus is really a farce. We have no \"rights\" over the use of our challenge images anyhow on DPC. Time to buck up and make a managerial call to fix the problem instead of insulting all of us who are stuck in this shackled agreement. Must there be endless discussion while images continue to be ripped off? A swift decision would be the responsible thing to do. It would mean more that the endless babble. Do something.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2010 01:55:17 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Place a consistent DPC watermark in one spot and I'll assure you that you will not notice after a while. Place a variety of individual watermarks and it will look crap. Place none and you have just enabled DPC to become a free stock photo library.
|
Ditto why I agree with not allowing personal watermarks. Different watermarks will look so jarring.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2010 10:53:43 PM · #61 |
| Ivo, great post! I think that to keep those happy that hate watermarks and do not mind their images getting ripped off the watermark should be an "opt in" agreement. Then those that want to have watermarks can, and those that do not are not forced into it. (watermarks should be immediately after voting is done, since many images are stolen while the challenge is on the front page) |
|
|
|
02/01/2010 07:04:16 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
And let me bold out the most important element of this article:
to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site
Watermarking has little to do with the specific operation or marketing of the site. |
I am afraid that you are wrong. The "operation or marketing of the site" would include the application of measures to limit the theft of its licensed images.
In fact, DPC might be exposed if it does not take reasonable measures to prevent the images it has licensed being used by third parties in breach of that licence.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2010 01:51:22 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
And let me bold out the most important element of this article:
to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site
Watermarking has little to do with the specific operation or marketing of the site. |
I am afraid that you are wrong. The "operation or marketing of the site" would include the application of measures to limit the theft of its licensed images.
In fact, DPC might be exposed if it does not take reasonable measures to prevent the images it has licensed being used by third parties in breach of that licence. |
If the latter is the case, I would also expect them to pursue copyright issues if there is a dpc logo on the stolen photo. If after sometime I wish to leave dpc, I can delete my portfolio images, but not my challenge images. Then they are no longer my responsibility right, that is what you are implying.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2010 06:32:40 PM · #64 |
I would love to find a sample court case to see what happens when: A photographer grants photo usage rights to a company and that company then fails to take reasonable safeguards against that photographer's images being stolen. This is despite the photographer repeatedly warning the company of their lax security in this regard. A photo is then stolen from the company and the photographer sues the company for not properly taking reasonable measures such as watermarking to make sure the photos were not stolen from them.
Does anyone know a quick way to search for past court cases like this?
BTW I do not feel that DPC has the right to just put their logo as the watermark..the image does not belong to them! They should allow you to upload your own watermark as a transparent gif file and then adjust opacity. Or just have the watermark be a standard "copyrighted".
The only reason I could see for using the dpc logo or word as the watermark would be to try and drive more people to the site. Our photos collectively is the main reason this site survives and makes money....but they are OUR photos. If someone steals one of my photos even if it is watermarked (rare) I want that photo to drive traffic to MY site, not DPC.
Message edited by author 2010-02-01 18:40:25. |
|
|
|
02/01/2010 06:59:03 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I would love to find a sample court case to see what happens when: A photographer grants photo usage rights to a company and that company then fails to take reasonable safeguards against that photographer's images being stolen. This is despite the photographer repeatedly warning the company of their lax security in this regard. A photo is then stolen from the company and the photographer sues the company for not properly taking reasonable measures such as watermarking to make sure the photos were not stolen from them.
Does anyone know a quick way to search for past court cases like this?
BTW I do not feel that DPC has the right to just put their logo as the watermark..the image does not belong to them! They should allow you to upload your own watermark as a transparent gif file and then adjust opacity. Or just have the watermark be a standard "copyrighted".
The only reason I could see for using the dpc logo or word as the watermark would be to try and drive more people to the site. Our photos collectively is the main reason this site survives and makes money....but they are OUR photos. If someone steals one of my photos even if it is watermarked (rare) I want that photo to drive traffic to MY site, not DPC. |
Is this called "Shaking the bee's nest"? lol |
|
|
|
02/01/2010 08:11:20 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
The original and only purpose of the watermarking agenda is to hobble those who steal the \"perpetually displayed\" images from this site. From this site and this site only. Understand that although the underlying image may be yours, you had forfeited your right to determine how it is displayed \"on this site\" as soon as you uploaded it as a challenge entry. It is a unilateral agreement designed to ensure the challenge history remains wholly populated. It benefits Langdon, the owner of this site, as it binds your underlying image into an indefinite advertising agreement. It is a marriage in which you are stuck.
As the frequency of theft from this site increases, it acts to undermine the validity of this unilateral agreement. Is it reasonable to expect advertising license where no clear provisions are outlined to protect the images other than a copyright \"statement\" which is not part of the image itself? Where no \"reasonable\" compensation to the contributor is offered? Was reasonable effort made to ensure you understand you are entering this agreement at the time of uploading? Were you prompted to opt in or out of this agreement at the time of uploading a challenge entry? Did you understand the agreement and the permanence it implies?
Oh well, that will be cracked I\'m sure.
In the meantime.
Those who do not want to have DPC watermark historical challenge entries are also those who place little value upon copyright by encouraging the haphazard display and redistribution of your property. It is that simple.
There should be one watermark for all the historical challenge entries identifying the image as one that was entrusted to DPC and DPC only. No personal watermarks should be on the entries as the issue has never been the ownership of the image but rather the responsibility of DPC binding your image into a never ending advertising contact. This is where the fault is and what needs to be remedied. Although the guilt partially falls upon those who steal historical challenge entries, it equally falls upon the advertiser who didn\'t take reasonable precautions to uphold the usage agreement in the first place. The agreement binds the contributor but not the offender? hmmmmm
Place a consistent DPC watermark in one spot and I\'ll assure you that you will not notice after a while. Place a variety of individual watermarks and it will look crap. Place none and you have just enabled DPC to become a free stock photo library.
Lastly, this idea of a community consensus is really a farce. We have no \"rights\" over the use of our challenge images anyhow on DPC. Time to buck up and make a managerial call to fix the problem instead of insulting all of us who are stuck in this shackled agreement. Must there be endless discussion while images continue to be ripped off? A swift decision would be the responsible thing to do. It would mean more that the endless babble. Do something. |
this this this this |
|
|
|
02/02/2010 03:52:41 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I would love to find a sample court case to see what happens when: A photographer grants photo usage rights to a company and that company then fails to take reasonable safeguards against that photographer's images being stolen. This is despite the photographer repeatedly warning the company of their lax security in this regard. A photo is then stolen from the company and the photographer sues the company for not properly taking reasonable measures such as watermarking to make sure the photos were not stolen from them.
Does anyone know a quick way to search for past court cases like this?
BTW I do not feel that DPC has the right to just put their logo as the watermark..the image does not belong to them! They should allow you to upload your own watermark as a transparent gif file and then adjust opacity. Or just have the watermark be a standard "copyrighted".
The only reason I could see for using the dpc logo or word as the watermark would be to try and drive more people to the site. Our photos collectively is the main reason this site survives and makes money....but they are OUR photos. If someone steals one of my photos even if it is watermarked (rare) I want that photo to drive traffic to MY site, not DPC. |
Sounds interesting.
My guess is that if the photo has not been purchased, but has merely been placed there as open content that the company may use as it sees fit, that this would make a really tough case for the photographer. If the picture represented a significant financial value to them, they probably ought not to put it up there.
If it later became a source of revenue (and presumably we are talking about an amount high enough to actually be handled by a court - I don't think courts handle things like $14 US dollars in sales on microstock over a period of 3 years), it would almost certainly be the sole responsibility of the owner of the photo to pursue any compensation.
The host of the image would be seen to have taken 'reasonable measures' to prevent illicit use.
Their TOS may include an assurance that 'reasonable measures' would be taken, but I do not see anything that claims that they are responsible for financial compensation. That is just getting a bit silly. They do not stand to receive financial benefit from your financial loss, so why would they be required to compensate you?
You are the one that takes the risk of putting information on the internet. There will always be people who try to take advantage of the availability of content that can be collected online. One could also argue that if you are interested in 'opting in' to a watermark, you are quite aware of these risks.
As to them getting some sort of "advertising" benefit from having their DPC logo on the pictures, I think that you are really starting to wander into the territory of paranoia. That could hardly be seen as a primary motive here.
The primary purpose of using DPC as the watermark is to allow for automation and reduce the workload for the purpose of protecting users. It is an additional concession to allow a link to the photographer's profile, and I think that if this is not enough, then perhaps your images are best left off the interwebz.
Remember that the basic premise of DPC is to PUT pictures into the public eye. |
|
|
|
02/02/2010 08:09:06 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
My guess is that if the photo has not been purchased, but has merely been placed there as open content that the company may use as it sees fit, that this would make a really tough case for the photographer. If the picture represented a significant financial value to them, they probably ought not to put it up there.
If it later became a source of revenue (and presumably we are talking about an amount high enough to actually be handled by a court - I don't think courts handle things like $14 US dollars in sales on microstock over a period of 3 years), it would almost certainly be the sole responsibility of the owner of the photo to pursue any compensation.
The host of the image would be seen to have taken 'reasonable measures' to prevent illicit use.
Their TOS may include an assurance that 'reasonable measures' would be taken, but I do not see anything that claims that they are responsible for financial compensation. That is just getting a bit silly. They do not stand to receive financial benefit from your financial loss, so why would they be required to compensate you?
You are the one that takes the risk of putting information on the internet. There will always be people who try to take advantage of the availability of content that can be collected online. One could also argue that if you are interested in 'opting in' to a watermark, you are quite aware of these risks.
As to them getting some sort of "advertising" benefit from having their DPC logo on the pictures, I think that you are really starting to wander into the territory of paranoia. That could hardly be seen as a primary motive here.
The primary purpose of using DPC as the watermark is to allow for automation and reduce the workload for the purpose of protecting users. It is an additional concession to allow a link to the photographer's profile, and I think that if this is not enough, then perhaps your images are best left off the interwebz.
Remember that the basic premise of DPC is to PUT pictures into the public eye. |
Clear, concise, & sensible....well stated.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2010 08:45:51 AM · #69 |
I think that's the first time anyone has ever said I was concise.
heheheh. |
|
|
|
02/02/2010 10:32:18 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Sounds interesting.
My guess is that if the photo has not been purchased, but has merely been placed there as open content that the company may use as it sees fit, that this would make a really tough case for the photographer. If the picture represented a significant financial value to them, they probably ought not to put it up there.
If it later became a source of revenue (and presumably we are talking about an amount high enough to actually be handled by a court - I don't think courts handle things like $14 US dollars in sales on microstock over a period of 3 years), it would almost certainly be the sole responsibility of the owner of the photo to pursue any compensation.
The host of the image would be seen to have taken 'reasonable measures' to prevent illicit use.
Their TOS may include an assurance that 'reasonable measures' would be taken, but I do not see anything that claims that they are responsible for financial compensation. That is just getting a bit silly. They do not stand to receive financial benefit from your financial loss, so why would they be required to compensate you?
You are the one that takes the risk of putting information on the internet. There will always be people who try to take advantage of the availability of content that can be collected online. One could also argue that if you are interested in 'opting in' to a watermark, you are quite aware of these risks.
As to them getting some sort of "advertising" benefit from having their DPC logo on the pictures, I think that you are really starting to wander into the territory of paranoia. That could hardly be seen as a primary motive here.
The primary purpose of using DPC as the watermark is to allow for automation and reduce the workload for the purpose of protecting users. It is an additional concession to allow a link to the photographer's profile, and I think that if this is not enough, then perhaps your images are best left off the interwebz.
Remember that the basic premise of DPC is to PUT pictures into the public eye. |
To start with your last opinion, about automation.....I agree that a standard watermark is the most sensible way to go, but that watermark does not have to be a DPC watermark. Why do you feel a common watermark would have to be the DPC name or symbol? Why not just "Image Re-Use Prohibited", or something along those lines?
Your argument that simply posting your image online means that you know it can get ripped off and you are willing to risk doing so is putting the blame onto the photographer and that is wrong. Would you blame a rape victim because she was wearing a short skirt?
The TOS of DPC is not likely to say anything about "reasonable precaution" from theft prevention....they are obviously not going to put something out there which gives them more of a responsibility. I think perhaps you misunderstood that part of my question. What I meant was that if a company is granted the rights to display someone's work (and in fact most of us PAY to give them shit right) then when the photographer points out that their images are in fact being stolen from said site that the site should have some kind of responsibility to protect the images.
I was just playing devil's advocate and trying to emphasize the fact that since we are granting the usage of our images (in perpetuity which is ridiculous!) that the site should have the responsibility to give the photographer the option to have a watermark to protect those images.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2010 12:31:42 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Your argument that simply posting your image online means that you know it can get ripped off and you are willing to risk doing so is putting the blame onto the photographer and that is wrong. Would you blame a rape victim because she was wearing a short skirt? |
That's an irrelevant and ridiculous analogy.
The sooner you guys get off trying to blame DPC for your short-sightedness, the easier it will be to reconcile some sort of solution.
They're trying to work something out, yet you guys persist on trying to make the site out to be some sort of bad guy now that everyone has a little more sense and there have been some ripoffs.
It's being worked out, so why don't you knock off with the site bashing and actually do some positive, forward thinking.
You can also quit bashing those of us who accept what we've done as part of participation without whining, and just move on.
Be part of the solution.
Message edited by author 2010-02-02 12:32:19.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2010 12:56:02 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Be part of the solution. |
A healthy discussion about legal effects and expectations is part of the solution. Who is responsible for what and what are the legal implications of the possible actions. And if new TOS would be necessary or if it is all covered under the current one.
Also because an auto-watermarking of all the past images might violate the rights of people who have participated in challenges and signed up to old TOS for that. That is why it is important to determine if you can put a dpc logo on it, or only (c) 2002-2010 photographer name.
And if the steps that dpc take are not sufficient to prevent theft, whose problem is that?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2010 01:37:14 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
BTW I do not feel that DPC has the right to just put their logo as the watermark..the image does not belong to them! They should allow you to upload your own watermark as a transparent gif file and then adjust opacity. Or just have the watermark be a standard "copyrighted". |
You have licensed the image to DPC. They "own" the licence.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2010 01:59:13 PM · #74 |
I think a 'standard' watermark(size, opacity, and wording) would eventually become "invisible" to regular site users. Similar to how we drive to work and then arrive without remembering a thing about the trip. It would be so common our brains would ignore it.
But, if every watermark was different, our brains ability to ignore would be hampered. |
|
|
|
02/02/2010 02:25:48 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
... the site should have the responsibility to give the photographer the option to have a watermark to protect those images. |
1. I don't see you exercising the option you have to watermark your portfolio images.
2. Did you obtain a license to create this derivative work you have posted?
 |
|
