| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2007 03:13:41 PM · #76 |
| I switched from Pbase to dotphoto for my online portfolio because dotphoto has watermarking and pbase doesn't. I've had theft problems with some of my portraits. I know of two families that I did cap and gown pictures for them, they never bought any pictures, but my son and brother have both told me that they printed them out from my website. I also had an incident where one teenager took a picture I took of another teenager and posted it on her myspace, but wrote "WHORE" across the picture. I know some of my more faithful customers don't really like the big ugly "proof" right across the middle of the picture, but they understand when I explain about theft and unintended use of my image. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:13:45 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are too many options on the poll suggestion to produce conclusive results. Simplify it to see if DPC members want images to be watermarked or not. If they do, then examine the possible ways to accomplish it. |
Or just let members optionally watermark their images during voting and you'll see how popular or not it is, if winning, watermarked images predominate ?
After all, those are the only ones liable to be getting stolen. |
This would be great if it did not compromise anonymity...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:16:08 PM · #78 |
They should all be exactly the same, done through a script during the upload submission, or not at all.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:16:27 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I switched from Pbase to dotphoto for my online portfolio because dotphoto has watermarking and pbase doesn't. I've had theft problems with some of my portraits. I know of two families that I did cap and gown pictures for them, they never bought any pictures, but my son and brother have both told me that they printed them out from my website. I also had an incident where one teenager took a picture I took of another teenager and posted it on her myspace, but wrote "WHORE" across the picture. I know some of my more faithful customers don't really like the big ugly "proof" right across the middle of the picture, but they understand when I explain about theft and unintended use of my image. |
Yup, and that's more than appropriate for commercial images for clients. How would a watermark stop someone further defacing your image ?
Do you enter your client images here ?
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:19:19. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:17:34 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Brad:
They should all be exactly the same, done through a script during the upload submission, or not at all. |
I'd be perfectly happy with this, as long as it was optional.
I don't have much faith in dpc (or anything really) faithfully recreating my JPEGs automatically without screwing them up, but YMMV. As an option prior to voting, I'd be all for it.
If it doesn't compromise the image, then it shouldn't matter if you switch it on or not, right ?
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:18:39. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:20:26 PM · #81 |
GUYS GUYS GUYS, I THINK WE ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS HERE....
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT HE DIDNT STEAL THE PHOTO FROM THE DEVIANT?! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:20:56 PM · #82 |
What many don't see yet, is that if every image has the watermark, be it added during initial upload to a challenge, or added after, the brain after a while has a way of nearly ignoring it.
Come back and look at this a few times and you'll see what I mean.
See it enough, and it no longer affects how you see/judge an image.
The initial shock of seeing it, makes it like OMG - that's terrible, my image has been ruined/violated.
It's human nature to not like change.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:27:04.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:24:25 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Brad:
What many don't see yet, is that if every image has the watermark, be it added during initial upload to a challenge, or added after, the brain after a while has a way of nearly ignoring it. The initial shock of seeing it, makes it like OMG - that's terrible. It's human nature to not like change. |
This is the point I fundamentally disagree with. I've looked at many, many images with copyright logos across them (all the same) I see it every time. I suppose if you don't actually look at the images before voting in any real way, it might become less of a distraction.
Corbis is a good example.
But like I said - if you want to optionally enable it for all your images during voting, I'd be happy for you.
After all, if it is a popular idea and doesn't reduce the quality of the images, everyone will do it - so the notion that the watermark fades in to the background would be fine and people selecting to cover their images in a watermark wouldn't score worse than anyone else.
it isn't dislike of change that motivates me. It is dislike of watermarks.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:55:49. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:26:55 PM · #84 |
I'm personally into making it harder to just drag-and-drop, but I'm in the minority in this discussion it seems.
RE the watermark:
Would it make sense for non-registered users to see a pretty obvious watermark and/or have more difficulty with the [scared to mention again] drag/drop and contextual menus? It just seems to me that most of these thieves are not into putting too much effort (especially into taking photos) so I'm interested in deterring theft, not necessarilly modifying images we look at.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:36:18. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:28:55 PM · #85 |
OOBie award to you â€Â¦ and SLAAAAP! How dare you Larus!
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
GUYS GUYS GUYS, I THINK WE ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS HERE....
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT HE DIDNT STEAL THE PHOTO FROM THE DEVIANT?! |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:42:54 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I'm personally into making it harder to just drag-and-drop, but I'm in the minority in this discussion it seems.
RE the watermark:
Would it make sense for non-registered users to see a pretty obvious watermark and/or have more difficulty with the [scared to mention again] drag/drop and contextual menus? It just seems to me that most of these thieves are not into putting too much effort (especially into taking photos) so I'm interested in deterring theft, not necessarilly modifying images we look at. |
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
1) Members don't have to put up with the watermarks.
2) It encourages registered users to spend the $25.
3) It may drive a few people away (ya I know, but it isn't like there is a lack of entries these days).
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:44:44 PM · #87 |
Also - if you make it so unregistered people cant view full images, then people will just register. Its not like its really really hard.
I think one option could be this....but probably wayyyy too much work.
Unregistered = thumbnails only
Registered = Full images w. watermarks
Paid = Full images.
IM A GENIUS!!
(Plus that would drum up more paid memberships) |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:47:39 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25... |
Maybe not most of 'em but some are, such as the recently uncovered and banned Faye Mozingo... |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:48:57 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by metatate:
I'm personally into making it harder to just drag-and-drop, but I'm in the minority in this discussion it seems.
RE the watermark:
Would it make sense for non-registered users to see a pretty obvious watermark and/or have more difficulty with the [scared to mention again] drag/drop and contextual menus? It just seems to me that most of these thieves are not into putting too much effort (especially into taking photos) so I'm interested in deterring theft, not necessarilly modifying images we look at. |
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
1) Members don't have to put up with the watermarks.
2) It encourages registered users to spend the $25.
3) It may drive a few people away (ya I know, but it isn't like there is a lack of entries these days).
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25... |
fantastic idea ... where's the petition?? I wanna sign it! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:49:37 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Also - if you make it so unregistered people cant view full images, then people will just register. Its not like its really really hard.
I think one option could be this....but probably wayyyy too much work.
Unregistered = thumbnails only
Registered = Full images w. watermarks
Paid = Full images.
IM A GENIUS!!
(Plus that would drum up more paid memberships) |
Personally, I hate registering at sites where I can't see what I'm registering for first, or registering simply because I have to when I know I just want to look at something specific and not become active on the site. Usually I'll just walk away. And I also refer friends here to view specifics, and I don't want them having to register (and clog DPC) just to look. I'd vote for unregistered and registered to class the same, if any change had to be made.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 15:51:26. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:50:41 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25... |
Maybe not most of 'em but some are, such as the recently uncovered and banned Faye Mozingo... |
Who was trying to come back as Faye Mozingo? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:50:55 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Paid = Full images. |
$25 - yup!
That sure beats paying for images through stock agencies anyway, or using someone else's account to access, or, or...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:51:09 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
1) Members don't have to put up with the watermarks.
2) It encourages registered users to spend the $25.
3) It may drive a few people away (ya I know, but it isn't like there is a lack of entries these days).
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25... |
Didn't we already mention xxxScarlettxx or whatever her name was, that was doing just that ? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:54:04 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now THAT is sorta interesting. A few pros:
4) I'm fairly sure the average copyright abuser is not paying the $25... |
Maybe not most of 'em but some are, such as the recently uncovered and banned Faye Mozingo... |
Who was trying to come back as Faye Mozingo? |
theft thread
Faye was found elsewhere posting images stolen from here, then was discovered to have an account here. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:01:45 PM · #95 |
We're talking 640 x 480 images â€Â¦ these are not stock photo images to be used in print. This is to prevent the proliferation of stolen images all over the internet - not prevent billboard and brochure usage.
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Paid = Full images. |
$25 - yup!
That sure beats paying for images through stock agencies anyway, or using someone else's account to access, or, or... |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:05:17 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I'm personally into making it harder to just drag-and-drop, but I'm in the minority in this discussion it seems.
RE the watermark:
Would it make sense for non-registered users to see a pretty obvious watermark and/or have more difficulty with the [scared to mention again] drag/drop and contextual menus? It just seems to me that most of these thieves are not into putting too much effort (especially into taking photos) so I'm interested in deterring theft, not necessarilly modifying images we look at. |
I just don't see why making someone click one check box before they pinch the image is a deterrent ? The file names already have a long message saying that the image shouldn't be taken, so they already know that they shouldn't.
Making them click a check box first isn't really 'putting too much effort' in to it, is it? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:08:01 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by metatate:
We're talking 640 x 480 images â€Â¦ these are not stock photo images to be used in print. This is to prevent the proliferation of stolen images all over the internet - not prevent billboard and brochure usage. |
Read my earlier post with what can be done with 640 images.
This poor horse. It's been beaten to nearly an unrecognizable pulp. I told myself I was staying out this whole issue after discussing it so many times, mostly falling on deaf ears. I'm tired. I'mma go make some money now.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 16:08:40.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:17:08 PM · #98 |
| GUYS. I think everyone needs to go back and read what I wrote. And then applaud me and vote me king of the castle 2008. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:18:57 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
GUYS. I think everyone needs to go back and read what I wrote. And then applaud me and vote me king of the castle 2008. |
Did you miss the bit were we pointed to the various paid up members who have been caught pinching images ? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 04:26:38 PM · #100 |
I just read your previous post Brad. I work at a printing company myself. I also work as a freelance designer. I wouldn't jeopardize my career by ever participating in something like that but I see what you mean.
Big projects and big customers pay big money for anything, including images. Little customers and cheap projects will get away with the use of lo-res images, stolen images and stolen fonts etc. People grab stuff off the internet and drop it right into their artwork (usually using less-than-loved design software like MS publisher which is free or cheap for them in the short-term, until they get the bill from the printer who had to jump through hoops to make it work) If there's intention that a large audience will see something printed, chances are this stuff isn't going to happen.
I recently had a customer that dragged an image off of Getty for an FPO when showing me a mock-up what they wanted- it was a Royalty image that would have cost a minimum of 850$ at the size we needed it. I moved on to micro-stock and found something usable.
I really think many people are pretty ignorant to this issue and I think ANY steps taken to make prevent easily copying DPC images would be positive.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 16:28:02. |
|
