| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2009 12:45:44 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street..
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:56:50 PM · #102 |
Any kind of watermark that would satisfy (careful wording here) a person that would go to that extent, would have to cover the whole image. Sorry but I have seen enough to know no matter how well crafted they destroy said image.
Also I agree on the 2 way street :) |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:00:29 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
so what if he values his images and feels he's losing revenue due to the "lack of security" from the site |
Well, since this is a recreational site, and he's ostensibly read the terms of service and understands how things work here, why would he continue to participate if it isn't his choice. Personally, I'd like to see, or hear of, some actual examples of this mysterious lost revenue. It'd be easy to stop. Don't submit.
Originally posted by kandykarml:
It's undisputable that people have had their images stolen and they have LOST revenue because of that.. |
Umm.....it's indusputable that people have had images stolen, I know that personally.....
Lost revenue? I doubt that.
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I can't see ANYTHING negative coming from a site that offers the option to the photog to allow additional protection on their images regarding theft.. Take it or leave it.. If you view it as childish and simple and not effective, then don't use it.. If you think it helps and you get a better nights sleep, then use it.. LOL.. How hard is this.. |
Well, you have the option to watermark yopur portfolio images, so go right ahead, but this after-the-fact deal with asking the site to provide this extra measure of security, that's dubious at best, and easy to overcome with minor PS work if you really want to steal an image.....
Why is it on the site to put this in place for a few people who decide that this is what should happen?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:04:03 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street.. |
You have any hard and fast evidence to support this?
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
I stop looking at images on any site that has watermarks on them.
I don't get why you'd do that if you want people to see the image.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:21:30 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street.. |
You have any hard and fast evidence to support this? |
You could ask  Skip about this. I think one (not the only one of course) of his reasons for backing off here had to do with protecting his work. I'm pretty sure he advocated the opinion of if you don't want it "stolen", don't post it...but he also had watermarked all of his portfolio at one point.
However, to ask for "hard and fast evidence" is kind of a weak argument - whose to say you couldn't argue that point the other way? |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:23:20 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Any kind of watermark that would satisfy (careful wording here) a person that would go to that extent, would have to cover the whole image. Sorry but I have seen enough to know no matter how well crafted they destroy said image. |
This well-established DPC member has done a nice job with a discrete watermark...one set of examples here. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:20:27 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street.. |
You have any hard and fast evidence to support this? ... |
Only the same amount of evidence you have to support the fact that people would leave... I in fact, would not leave.. It bothers me none.. I don't find watermarks obtrusive in any way if done properly.. So, it's just my opinion that it's only common sense that if one feels that they would leave because of watermarks, then there is another who will stay because of it.. Kinda the age old saying, one mans trash is another mans treasure.. Just cause you hate it, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to love it..
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I stop looking at images on any site that has watermarks on them...... |
I can appreciate this.. That's your choice, I do not..
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't get why you'd do that if you want people to see the image. |
Maybe we should post some examples of really obscene watermarks that clearly obstruct the view of the image and some that are just there and can be seen over the image, but still allow you to see what the photographer wants you to see.. Just a thought..
And believe me, I can fully appreciate the fact that anyone with basic photoshop skills can get around a watermark.. Do I think the average person will, no, I don't.. It's my same theory on car alarms.. Do I believe a decent theif can still take my car with the best car alarm installed, sure they can, but does that mean I'm going to avoid setting the alarm & or locking my doors.. NO, of course not.. I'm only making it more difficult to rip me off.. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:33:42 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Why do the majority of stock photo sites apply a watermark to photos displayed online? Their process is totally automated with no input from the registered contributors. |
Automatically watermarking all images upon upload is easy. Making it optional for select people under changing circumstances is not so easy (I've been told). |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:02:41 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Why do the majority of stock photo sites apply a watermark to photos displayed online? Their process is totally automated with no input from the registered contributors. |
Automatically watermarking all images upon upload is easy. Making it optional for select people under changing circumstances is not so easy (I've been told). |
My Smugmug account applies watermarks only to images that I select. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:16:01 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Maybe we should post some examples of really obscene watermarks that clearly obstruct the view of the image and some that are just there and can be seen over the image, but still allow you to see what the photographer wants you to see.. Just a thought.. |
This would fall into the "ok" ones for me... - by Les ( AperturePriority) |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:10:18 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
So what the hell is your argument? |
What's yours ????????? I'm missing it.. I'm sorry, I keep trying to read through all of your posts, but I don't see what your reasons for being AGAINST a security measure are...
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Please relieve me of my ignorance. Exactly where and how do I lose money by someone using my image elsewhere? How, right now, are YOU losing money by your stolen image being used in this forum? You're not and the argument that you are, or could even possibly be, is asinine. |
OK, I'll help you out here... and, this is for free... If you have an image that someone wants to use on a commercial level... Normally, they would buy the image rights.. But, hey, they can just take the image from the DPC website and use it with out anyones permission.. Boom !!! The photographer who could have had the chance of being contacted to sell the rights to the image has now lost that opportunity.. What is so difficult to understand.. How likely is this ??? Not sure.. Maybe that is your arguement.... Again, not sure... But, do you have no concept of how images are sold on the internet ??? |
Oooooooooooooooooo. IF some high-dollar, commercial organization wants to use an 800 pixel, low-resolution image...WTF? Again, ridiculous. If, by chance, someone is needing such a low resolution image, exactly how many millions of dollars are you wishfully dreaming that you MAY be losing? And with such potential gains at stake here, why the hell are you NOT watermarking YOUR OWN portfolio images. I bet those things are all over the internet right now where you could have made money. If I were you, I'd drop EVERYTHING and make sure that at least the images you can control are watermarked right away. Sheesh. IF... |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:13:16 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And believe me, I can fully appreciate the fact that anyone with basic photoshop skills can get around a watermark.. Do I think the average person will, no, I don't.. It's my same theory on car alarms.. Do I believe a decent theif can still take my car with the best car alarm installed, sure they can, but does that mean I'm going to avoid setting the alarm & or locking my doors.. NO, of course not.. I'm only making it more difficult to rip me off.. |
Oh horse crap. If someone really wants to take the image, they are just as willing to put in 45 seconds to conceal a ridiculous watermark. That is a fallacious, nonsensical argument. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:16:09 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
So what the hell is your argument? |
What's yours ????????? I'm missing it.. I'm sorry, I keep trying to read through all of your posts, but I don't see what your reasons for being AGAINST a security measure are...
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Please relieve me of my ignorance. Exactly where and how do I lose money by someone using my image elsewhere? How, right now, are YOU losing money by your stolen image being used in this forum? You're not and the argument that you are, or could even possibly be, is asinine. |
OK, I'll help you out here... and, this is for free... If you have an image that someone wants to use on a commercial level... Normally, they would buy the image rights.. But, hey, they can just take the image from the DPC website and use it with out anyones permission.. Boom !!! The photographer who could have had the chance of being contacted to sell the rights to the image has now lost that opportunity.. What is so difficult to understand.. How likely is this ??? Not sure.. Maybe that is your arguement.... Again, not sure... But, do you have no concept of how images are sold on the internet ??? |
Oooooooooooooooooo. IF some high-dollar, commercial organization wants to use an 800 pixel, low-resolution image...WTF? Again, ridiculous. If, by chance, someone is needing such a low resolution image, exactly how many millions of dollars are you wishfully dreaming that you MAY be losing? And with such potential gains at stake here, why the hell are you NOT watermarking YOUR OWN portfolio images. I bet those things are all over the internet right now where you could have made money. If I were you, I'd drop EVERYTHING and make sure that at least the images you can control are watermarked right away. Sheesh. IF... |
Ouch..... I guess this means you haven't browsed my portfolio.. LOL... I do watermark the images I chose to watermark...
And, this is just a suggestion for the folks who want to use it.. No one is saying it must be forced upon your images.. I'm not even asking the site to provide this free of service.. Just talking about additional ways to make people sleep better at night even if it's using a method you totally disagree with.. If it doesn't effect you, then don't worry about it, right ??
  
 
  
 
see see seeeeeeeeeee.. LOL..... I WATERMARK !!!!!!!!!! and I love it... lol
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 16:24:01. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:40:30 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
see see seeeeeeeeeee.. LOL..... I WATERMARK !!!!!!!!!! and I love it... lol |
I agree you should be able to watermark all of your images if you want to. However that said you should know that none of your images are being protected with that watermark. I can remove every one of those watermarks very easily with one arm tied behind my back while you're punching me in the face. :P Seriously, if you know Photoshop it's incredibly easy to remove a watermark. Hell even if you don't know Photoshop there appears to be programs out there you can download that will remove them for you.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 16:42:29.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:04:16 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
|
3 minute cleptography
:P
Here's the point - watermarks deter folks who might steal a photo and try and claim it as their own on some other photo forum site or their blog or whatever, but it would not deter someone who was intent on stealing it and using it for commercial gain. IMO of course.
For what it's worth, I support the right of folks to watermark their images. I don't support watermarked images during voting in challenges. If offering an option to watermark challenge photos after the challenge were simple enough to implement, I would be fine with it. But put me in the camp that thinks watermarks on images even in portfolios suck much of the enjoyment out of viewing them - for me anyway.
Now carry on.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:13:08 PM · #116 |
so, I wonder how many images that we know of taken off of DPC and used on other sites for various reason with out the permission of the rightfull owner were watermarked.... anyone ??? Or, do we only know of images taken with out the permission of the rightfull owner that did not have a watermark on it...
Again, just curious...
and, again, again.. I know and I can't stress this enough how easy it is to remove a watermark... My point was to show that some people DO in fact watermark their portfolio images.... I know this man... :-) |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:15:39 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
|
3 minute cleptography
:P
Here's the point - watermarks deter folks who might steal a photo and try and claim it as their own on some other photo forum site or their blog or whatever, but it would not deter someone who was intent on stealing it and using it for commercial gain. IMO of course.
Now carry on.
|
huhhhhhhhhh... you owe me 100 gozillion, 78 million and 34 cents for the unauthorized use of my photo.. :-p... I still take paypal. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:26:36 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street..
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
I never ever want to see a watermark screw up my photo. Because that is what it does.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:29:09 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Maybe we should post some examples of really obscene watermarks that clearly obstruct the view of the image and some that are just there and can be seen over the image, but still allow you to see what the photographer wants you to see.. Just a thought.. |
This would fall into the "ok" ones for me... - by Les ( AperturePriority) |
That is absolutely horrible.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:34:29 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street..
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I never ever want to see a watermark screw up my photo. Because that is what it does. |
Ditto that....
Oh, and BTW, Kristin.....you say that we will see an increase in signups, but that it's a trivial thing to leave over?
You've got three of us right here in this post that are seriously opposed to it.
That's hard & fast data.
Do you personally know of three people who will sign up if we have watermarking?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:39:13 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street..
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I never ever want to see a watermark screw up my photo. Because that is what it does. |
Ditto that....
Oh, and BTW, Kristin.....you say that we will see an increase in signups, but that it's a trivial thing to leave over?
You've got three of us right here in this post that are seriously opposed to it.
That's hard & fast data.
Do you personally know of three people who will sign up if we have watermarking? |
No, I don't... I think it's reasonable to believe it.. But, you didn't answer my question about it being optional.. Would you leave if it was optional.. ???
edit to note: I'm not looking for people to join for this "make believe" reason either.. LOL.. It's a hypothetical scenario therefore very silly for me or anyone to go out searching for NON DPC members to join.. Don't ya think??
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 17:40:53. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:43:32 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
You could ask Skip about this. I think one (not the only one of course) of his reasons for backing off here had to do with protecting his work. I'm pretty sure he advocated the opinion of if you don't want it "stolen", don't post it...but he also had watermarked all of his portfolio at one point. |
I think we should.
But he's always watermarked his stuff.
I'd rather hear it from him that this was an issue than have you say so, though. I don't remember him ever squawking about site security here.
Doesn't anyone find it curious that nobody like Irene, Shannon, Simms, Larus, Gringo, Goodman,or any of the really outstanding photogs on this site don't seem to be too concerned about this?
I'd really like to have one of you watermark proponents actually give up a valid example of where they justifiably feel they've had an image stolen and lost revenue that they could have gotten instead.
Really and truly, had whomever stolen the image been put on a position to pay for it or move onto another free image, I'm sure they would have just moved on.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
However, to ask for "hard and fast evidence" is kind of a weak argument - whose to say you couldn't argue that point the other way? |
I do.
Sander does.
Alan does.
Eric does.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:48:10 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by SamhainD:
Not that it matters on the grand scale of things, and no not a threat. Just saying, the day I start seeing a bunch of watermarks on DPC, is the day I go meandering down the internet road. |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
And, not meant in any offensive way towards you, but the day we start seeing watermark images on the site, we will also see people sign up because of that... It's a two way street..
I think it's interesting that people would chose to leave such an amazing site over such a minor thing like a watermark.. Would you feel that way if it was optional ??? Just curious.. |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I never ever want to see a watermark screw up my photo. Because that is what it does. |
Ditto that.... |
But sometimes the watermark is the best thing in the photo...
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:52:33 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I never ever want to see a watermark screw up my photo. Because that is what it does. |
Ditto that.... |
But sometimes the watermark is the best thing in the photo... [/quote]
We should have a watermark challenge!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 05:56:53 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
No, I don't... I think it's reasonable to believe it.. |
Why??? What makes you think this??
Originally posted by kandykarml:
But, you didn't answer my question about it being optional.. Would you leave if it was optional.. ??? |
Maybe......prolly not, but I'd spend less time here looking at images and making comments after the challenges. Things is, I'd stop looking at images across the board if I started seeing too much of it, and if it got too prevalent, yeah.....maybe then I'd leave.
Originally posted by kandykarml:
edit to note: I'm not looking for people to join for this "make believe" reason either.. LOL.. It's a hypothetical scenario therefore very silly for me or anyone to go out searching for NON DPC members to join.. Don't ya think?? |
Speaking of odd scenarios......why would you watermark this image in the first place?
Who would steal it? Who, other than family would want a portrait of this couple at their wedding?
This brings me back to the DPC giants......if people like Larus and jj beguin don't watermark their stuff, why on earth would I?
Because we know that these small image files just are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. A 150/200 KB image file just isn't any big thing.
All my images that I like I have in BIG format, and I have them hanging in galleries and shows, in 16x20 and bigger. For starters, the difference between the images as they're shown here, and "life-size" is unreal. I'm just not worried about the little copies that *MIGHT* end up on some irrelevant site.
|
|
