DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Copyright Notice
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 188, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/06/2007 02:11:47 PM · #76
Originally posted by soup:
I'd like to see a poll on how many would actually be annoyed enough at a watermark to stop participating at DPC.


I realise it is very frustrating to have your images used in ways you didn't authorise. But I also know I've left sites before because of hackneyed image protection. I used to use betterphoto a lot, but left because their right click protection stuff was so intrusive and generally annoying (but still didn't protect images)

I've also not bought event photos because the watermarks obscured enough of the image to not be able to tell if I wanted to buy it or not (the curse of automated watermarking obscuring facial expressions)

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:12:09.
 02/06/2007 02:16:28 PM · #77
if every song you pirated from peer to peer had an annoying screeech sound somewhere in it. would you continue to download them?

i intentionally made the SOUP watermark huge. even on the face i think the nature of the photo still comes through.

i saw once a script that pointed the hotlinking to another GIF image. so the image you thought you were hot linking ended up being a GIF stating that this site doesn't like the fact you are trying to use their images. maybe something like that is possible. the image you view is not watermarked, but the one you try to save is, or it's a blantant slap on the cheek GIF stating to the fact you tried to and failed. then of course there is the issue of browser cache.
 02/06/2007 02:16:46 PM · #78
Originally posted by soup:
I'd like to see a poll on how many would actually be annoyed enough at a watermark to stop participating at DPC.


If the watermark was only visible to guests and users without paid memberships, I wonder how many of the gray shirts would upgrade to blue to make the watermark go away.

The way I see it, it's not worth the $25 to the average image thief to register if s/he's only doing it for the ability to illegally download an unblemished photo.
02/06/2007 02:21:19 PM · #79
to be honest i'm not all that worried about my images being hacked. but it is a topic that has generated about as much result as there has been improvement in windshield wipers. ie: lots of empty debate.
it'd be nice to see some progress towards REAL protection that isn't annoying, a pain in the ass, or just a hackable front...


02/06/2007 02:22:44 PM · #80
It's quite easy to add a watermark to an image via the ImageMagik libraries. Each user could upload a simple PNG file that would be added to their images on upload. Perhaps give users an option of where on the image they would like the watermark (much like shutterstock).



DPC could restrict the size of the PNG, as it does the user's profile image. Keeping the obtrusiveness to a minimal. Somewhere around 25-30% transparency should work well enough.

Another option to the user uploadable PNG is to create the watermark from the user's name and exposure year. This can also be done with the ImageMagik libraries. This might actually be a better idea as it would add consistency to the look.

The user would ofcourse have the right to not use a watermark, if they feel it is unnecessary or hurts his/her images.

//www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=2479597

I just noticed something cool about shutterstock is that it adds the //www.shutterstock.com and image number when a photo is hotlinked, but doesn't on site.

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:25:19.
 02/06/2007 02:24:23 PM · #81
Originally posted by soup:

i saw once a script that pointed the hotlinking to another GIF image. so the image you thought you were hot linking ended up being a GIF stating that this site doesn't like the fact you are trying to use their images. maybe something like that is possible. the image you view is not watermarked, but the one you try to save is, or it's a blantant slap on the cheek GIF stating to the fact you tried to and failed. then of course there is the issue of browser cache.


Again, those sorts of things are trivial to get around - 'view page info' when you right click shows the URL. PrintScreen and copy-paste ignores it. Scripts are simply disabled (there's options in most browsers to turn these features off, because they are so universally annoying, particularly for legitimate users).

I use the test that if my mum can do it, some teenager who actually wants a picture for their myspace can work it out in a few seconds. And my mum can do it.

As for making every image have the visual equivalent of an annoying screech sound, yes that would stop me downloading them. But then I wouldn't pay for them, or take the legal ones that screeched either.

Any solution should _first_ do no harm to the quality of the site. Not, screw it up as much as possible then hope that only 10% of the users quit. The people who view the site legitimately should come first, not last in terms of consideration - surely ?
02/06/2007 02:25:48 PM · #82
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The user would ofcourse have the right to not use a watermark, if they feel it is unnecessary or hurts his/her images.


Could a user have the option to not see images that have been mangled by someone's logo too ? I'd be fine with being able to switch images like that off & just not see them. I'd prefer it by a long way actually.

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:26:06.
 02/06/2007 02:27:07 PM · #83
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The user would ofcourse have the right to not use a watermark, if they feel it is unnecessary or hurts his/her images.


Could a user have the option to not see images that have been mangled by someone's logo too ? I'd be fine with being able to switch images like that off & just not see them. I'd prefer it by a long way actually.


What would be the point if anyone could turn it off? Seriously, think about it?
 02/06/2007 02:28:21 PM · #84
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I just noticed something cool about shutterstock is that it adds the //www.shutterstock.com and image number when a photo is hotlinked, but doesn't on site.


It's always on the image, they just crop them when they display them.
 02/06/2007 02:29:53 PM · #85
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The user would ofcourse have the right to not use a watermark, if they feel it is unnecessary or hurts his/her images.


Could a user have the option to not see images that have been mangled by someone's logo too ? I'd be fine with being able to switch images like that off & just not see them. I'd prefer it by a long way actually.


What would be the point if anyone could turn it off? Seriously, think about it?


I didn't say turn off the watermark. I said turn the images off. Don't let them be displayed at all. I'd rather have the option to not see them if they are going to be watermarked. This isn't a stock site. We are supposed to be sharing our images - that's rather the point. I'd rather not see them than see them ruined.
 02/06/2007 02:32:25 PM · #86
Originally posted by Gordon:

I didn't say turn off the watermark. I said turn the images off. Don't let them be displayed at all. I'd rather have the option to not see them if they are going to be watermarked. This isn't a stock site. We are supposed to be sharing our images - that's rather the point. I'd rather not see them than see them ruined.


ohh, I see... so instead of seeing my name and copyright on an image, you;'d rather not see the image at all... I got ya... I misunderstood you. I though you wanted to see the image without the watermark, which would be pointless.
 02/06/2007 02:33:23 PM · #87
i'm on the same page, and sort of brainstorming. you said you'd like to hear of a viable solution. any ideas?

and yes - minimizing the impact to the users of DPC should be considered first and foremost. although offering a more feature rich enviroment for paying members seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Again, those sorts of things are trivial to get around - 'view page info' when you right click shows the URL. PrintScreen and copy-paste ignores it. Scripts are simply disabled (there's options in most browsers to turn these features off, because they are so universally annoying, particularly for legitimate users).

I use the test that if my mum can do it, some teenager who actually wants a picture for their myspace can work it out in a few seconds. And my mum can do it.

As for making every image have the visual equivalent of an annoying screech sound, yes that would stop me downloading them. But then I wouldn't pay for them, or take the legal ones that screeched either.

Any solution should _first_ do no harm to the quality of the site. Not, screw it up as much as possible then hope that only 10% of the users quit. The people who view the site legitimately should come first, not last in terms of consideration - surely ?

02/06/2007 02:34:03 PM · #88
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I've read accounts where someone simply posted a picture without permission on their website and the creator collected several thousand dollars. People who infringe are often under the mistaken impression that simply removing the image after being notified that they are infringing is enough to avoid litigation. It isn't.


That's great if the infringer has the money.


Even if they don't, they have some assets. If it's a 15yo kid, then it's their parents assets/money. They may not have cash, but they likely will have things with cash value. There are also ways to put them on a payment plan, garnish their wages, seize property etc.

Mom and Dad may not want to pay for junior's infringement, but they'll cough up the cash if you have a lien placed on their car and or home.

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:35:44.
 02/06/2007 02:35:09 PM · #89
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
ohh, I see... so instead of seeing my name and copyright on an image, you;'d rather not see the image at all... I got ya... I misunderstood you. I though you wanted to see the image without the watermark, which would be pointless.


Yup. Consider applying soups watermark, or your shutterstock example to any one of the top 3 in the minimalism challenge. Given that it would be an option, it'll probably be on for the challenge winners.

Tell me which one would be enhanced by it. Which one would you prefer to look at and enjoy the most, with a big logo across the middle ?

How unobtrusive would it be, in any of those cases ? How much would the site be improved by adding that ? Any of these suggestions has to consider the experience of the legitimate users first. Not as some after thought.

It would ruin the whole site.



Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:36:34.
 02/06/2007 02:36:01 PM · #90
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I've read accounts where someone simply posted a picture without permission on their website and the creator collected several thousand dollars. People who infringe are often under the mistaken impression that simply removing the image after being notified that they are infringing is enough to avoid litigation. It isn't.


That's great if the infringer has the money.


Even if they don't, they have some assets. If it's a 15yo kid, then it's their parents assets/money. They may not have cash, but they likely will have things with cash value. There are also ways to put them on a payment plan, garnish their wages, seize property etc.


I always thought of the RIAA as arseholes though. I'm not ready to jump on board their anti-pirate ship just yet. Though you never know, that 15 year old kid's grandmother might have some money you could sue her for too. ;)

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:38:16.
 02/06/2007 02:41:04 PM · #91
Originally posted by Gordon:

I always thought of the RIAA as arseholes though. I'm not ready to jump on board their anti-pirate ship just yet. Though you never know, that 15 year old kid's grandmother might have some money you could sue her for too. ;)


Ehhh, some radio station would bail her out... :-)
 02/06/2007 03:26:56 PM · #92
If DPC implements some system for displaying copyright notices more obviously, I would like the option to have a Creative Commons notice displayed instead of a standard copyright notice. It looks like this:



This allows me to maintain the copyright on my images yet lets people know that I am granting a license for some kinds of uses. I don't care if some 15 yo kid uses my image on myspace--he's not going to buy images for his page so I'm not losing any money and may get some free advertising out of it. I also would like to encourage other artists to reuse my images by incorporating them into their own works. But if someone uses my image on a commercial site, I'll still be able to collect usage fees from them.

I think it should be legal to do things like this:



This image includes part of a Mickey Mouse cartoon that I am sure is protected by copyright and trademarks. I think Disney Studios could sue the photographer and DPC for this violation of their rights.

I find it ironic that many people here complain bitterly about their images being used elsewhere yet don't protest when someone here clearly violates a copyright.

--DanW

02/06/2007 03:32:39 PM · #93
Originally posted by wheeledd:
I find it ironic that many people here complain bitterly about their images being used elsewhere yet don't protest when someone here clearly violates a copyright.

--DanW


That image would only be in copyright violation if the photographer were trying to sell it. Personal use, such as photography competition for no prize does not violate corporate copyright.
02/06/2007 04:28:57 PM · #94
Since all the users are granting a perpetual license to DPC to display the images here, what if the SITE were to get a DigiMarc account, and use that service to (invisibly) watermark all uploaded images?

Even for a corporate account, it might only come out to a couple of dollars per member (perhaps instead of all images, it could be a paid-member perk) and would allow searching/tracking of those files.

Depending on how expensive the service is, it might even be worth a slight increase in the membership fee to afford that protection ... and maybe we could work out a deal with DigiMarc to promote their service in exchange for a lower rate.
 02/06/2007 04:30:40 PM · #95
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since all the users are granting a perpetual license to DPC to display the images here, what if the SITE were to get a DigiMarc account, and use that service to (invisibly) watermark all uploaded images?

Even for a corporate account, it might only come out to a couple of dollars per member (perhaps instead of all images, it could be a paid-member perk) and would allow searching/tracking of those files.

Depending on how expensive the service is, it might even be worth a slight increase in the membership fee to afford that protection ... and maybe we could work out a deal with DigiMarc to promote their service in exchange for a lower rate.


THAT would be SWEET!

Edit to add: If there were something that said the images were tracked by Digimarc.. I bet theft would fall off a lot.

Message edited by author 2007-02-06 16:34:40.
 02/06/2007 04:37:03 PM · #96
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's quite easy to add a watermark to an image via the ImageMagik libraries. Each user could upload a simple PNG file that would be added to their images on upload. Perhaps give users an option of where on the image they would like the watermark (much like shutterstock).



DPC could restrict the size of the PNG, as it does the user's profile image. Keeping the obtrusiveness to a minimal. Somewhere around 25-30% transparency should work well enough.

Another option to the user uploadable PNG is to create the watermark from the user's name and exposure year. This can also be done with the ImageMagik libraries. This might actually be a better idea as it would add consistency to the look.

The user would ofcourse have the right to not use a watermark, if they feel it is unnecessary or hurts his/her images.

//www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=2479597

I just noticed something cool about shutterstock is that it adds the //www.shutterstock.com and image number when a photo is hotlinked, but doesn't on site.


Last time i checked IE 7 still does not fuuly support PNG alpha transparency and would be the last major browser to not. It supports basic transparency but mind as well use gif at that point.
 02/06/2007 04:39:28 PM · #97
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since all the users are granting a perpetual license to DPC to display the images here, what if the SITE were to get a DigiMarc account, and use that service to (invisibly) watermark all uploaded images?

Even for a corporate account, it might only come out to a couple of dollars per member (perhaps instead of all images, it could be a paid-member perk) and would allow searching/tracking of those files.

Depending on how expensive the service is, it might even be worth a slight increase in the membership fee to afford that protection ... and maybe we could work out a deal with DigiMarc to promote their service in exchange for a lower rate.


Great idea.
 02/06/2007 04:41:14 PM · #98
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Last time i checked IE 7 still does not fuuly support PNG alpha transparency and would be the last major browser to not. It supports basic transparency but mind as well use gif at that point.


IE wouldn't have to support it... the ImageMagik Libraries would overlay the watermark onto the images.
 02/06/2007 04:41:58 PM · #99
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Last time i checked IE 7 still does not fuuly support PNG alpha transparency and would be the last major browser to not. It supports basic transparency but mind as well use gif at that point.


IE wouldn't have to support it... the ImageMagik Libraries would overlay the watermark onto the images.


Okay so its a CGI (PHP) Script on Server Side and its compiled to one image for viewing. In that case that works.
 02/06/2007 04:54:39 PM · #100
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since all the users are granting a perpetual license to DPC to display the images here, what if the SITE were to get a DigiMarc account, and use that service to (invisibly) watermark all uploaded images?

Even for a corporate account, it might only come out to a couple of dollars per member (perhaps instead of all images, it could be a paid-member perk) and would allow searching/tracking of those files.

Depending on how expensive the service is, it might even be worth a slight increase in the membership fee to afford that protection ... and maybe we could work out a deal with DigiMarc to promote their service in exchange for a lower rate.

This absolutely rocks.
Embedded is the invisible watermark. Someone snags the image and later on tries to pass it off as theirs. Case closed. Those that want to add data in the IPC fields is OK, but it's stripped out in a save for web anyway.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 05:19:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 05:19:53 PM EDT.