Watermark Discussion for New Dimension Limitations

11/11/2009 11:10:45 AM · #226

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Eric and Jeb you are really blowing my mind in this thread.

WE GET IT. YOURE AGAINST IT. GREAT.

Watermarks are not FORT KNOX. They will not prevent your image from being stolen if someone really wants to steal it. Doc's image could have had a watermark, and youre right, if he had put it anywhere else but right on his daughters face, it could be used. Not the point. The point is that its a DETERRENT. IT IS NOT A FAIL SAFE. IT IS NOT A CURE ALL. IT IS NOT A 100% GUARANTEE THAT THIS IMAGE WILL NEVER BE STOLEN. It is simply something to say "HEY THIS IMAGE IS NOT REALLY FAIR GAME, SO IF YOU WANT TO USE IT, CONTACT THE SITE, OR SPEND SOME TIME TRYING TO PHOTOSHOP ME OUT OF THE IMAGE"

I've not had works stolen personally. I have not lost millions of dollars due to it. But that doesn't mean that I can't see the benefit of a watermark or that I might not have work stolen in the future. Were not all Ansel Adams, no shit, but the potential for loss of funds is still there, even if I wouldn't have made money if the image wasn't stolen. Not to mention the other benefit of watermarks as promotion. I've gotten plenty of work from people posting watermarked images of mine, and the viewer googling my name (as my watermarked is a stylised text of my name). Thats work I wouldn't have gotten if I hadn't put a watermark on. WATERMARKS AS A MARKETING DEVICE?! SWOON!

Hell if I was a shade ball designer, this site would definitely be in my favorites, because we have a gallery that categorizes photos for me. Then even deeper, we have the challenges which take it even one step further and offer even more specialized themes. The back to school images...specifically Judy's (I think) of the Protractor...bam...thats my small run text book cover right there. Thanks DPC!

And to keep up with the old thought...this website is voluntary. If this is something that you feel will make the site intolerable for you, then I suggest you check out one of the other million photo contest sites and forums. No use losing sleep and getting all flustered over something you have no control over and no stake in.

In other words. Chill the eff out. Its not the end of the world. YOu gus sound like the FACEBOOK LAYOUT CHANGE people, who spaz anytime there is a change in the site.

This is all comical coming from a registered user who has only one image on profile.

11/11/2009 11:11:37 AM · #227

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Everything else? Actually this and entry sizes. I also didn't fork over the $25 until the sizes were increased. You like to exaggerate, don't you phil?

Everything else in THIS THREAD Eric. This thread.

Feel better? Somehow I doubt it.

Yeah. I misread that one. But hey, you pro-watermarkers are all repeating yourselves, too.

AJSullivan

11/11/2009 11:12:17 AM · #228

Because I didn't renew my membership after the first year. There are many more that can't be viewed unless I upgrade mine. But feel free to try and grasp at straws and ignore the actual content of what I said.

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 11:14:29.

11/11/2009 11:15:43 AM · #229

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Because I didn't renew my membership after the first year. There are many more that can't be viewed unless I update mine. But feel free to try and grasp at straws and ignore the actual content of what I said.

How is that grasping straws. Your points have been repeated time and again by people who actually pay for membership use here. You have one image showing and you are arguing about being pro-watermarking. Give me a break. You too have none of your website images watermarked. Do you not see the hypocrisy of the argument you are making?

ETA: Oh wait...I did find 3 that were watermarked. Only 3.

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 11:17:08.

AJSullivan

11/11/2009 11:22:38 AM · #230

I intentionally chose not to watermark the images on my website for the following reasons:

1. Its a flash based site, a little harder to lift images from (NOT IMPOSSIBLE, JUST HARDER"
2. I'm not concerned with any of the images there being lifted, and posted them with that in mind.
3. I'm not daft to the potential risk in not watermarking images, and made an intentional decision not to do it on my site.

Me not paying for this site has nothing to do with my opinion. If I were to enter a challenge, my image would still be stuck there, without the option for me to edit it, delete it, change it, etc.

AJSullivan

11/11/2009 11:24:47 AM · #231

On that note. Time for a hair cut as I look like a god damn chia pet.

Bottom line: CHANGE IS EVIL AND NO MATTER WHAT LANGDON DOES ITS WRONG AND BAD!

11/11/2009 11:30:52 AM · #232

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

print screen -->paste is no harder that right click --->paste. You're right, paying has little to do with it. The hypocrisy of arguing a principle and refusing to apply it is what really gets under my skin. Either do it where you can or shut up about forcing the rest of us to look at your crappy watermarks.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/11/2009 11:32:57 AM · #233

Ahhh, the classic Internet tough guy. If only the breed were rare.

11/11/2009 11:34:43 AM · #234

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

On that note. Time for a hair cut as I look like a god damn chia pet.

Bottom line: CHANGE IS EVIL AND NO MATTER WHAT LANGDON DOES ITS WRONG AND BAD!

?

I am walking for a bit, too. If I don't get some sleep, it will be a looooong shift at work tonight. I'll argue with you guys later.

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 11:35:22.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/11/2009 11:36:22 AM · #235

Originally posted by Phil:

Ahhh, the classic Internet tough guy. If only the breed were rare.

Ahhh, the classic Internet hypocrit. If only the breed were rare.

Canon EOS-20D

11/11/2009 11:50:28 AM · #236

You two are so cute. :)

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/11/2009 12:05:25 PM · #237

Originally posted by mk:

You two are so cute. :)

Check your email. I've got news.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/11/2009 12:05:54 PM · #238

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by Phil:
Ahhh, the classic Internet tough guy. If only the breed were rare.

Ahhh, the classic Internet hypocrit. If only the breed were rare.

Care to point out my hypocrisy Eric?

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/11/2009 12:27:23 PM · #239

.

With all this noise going on in this thread, I just want to say:

I AM FOR WATERMARKS!

Carry on...

.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/11/2009 12:45:11 PM · #240

The comment has been made about registering your photos. This certainly can be done, but is much more cost effective to do on a large-scale basis. It's really not financially feasible to do on a weekly basis as challenge entries are posted.

A good DPC thread here with more info: Registering your Copyright - Why Should You?

pixelpig

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 1.8/50mm SAM

11/11/2009 01:17:28 PM · #241

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Do we seriously need multiple, concurrent threads on this ridiculous topic. Please don't make me regret putting the blue shirt back on last night. Watermarked or not, it isn't 'safe' in any manner on the internet. Look at the Dr Achoo thread. There was no place he could have placed an UNOBTRUSIVE watermark and not had the image used. Watermarks...you guys must really think highly of yourselves to believe that every image you post is going to cost you all that money when someone takes it. I have seen most of the work on here. Most of us can relax and LET IT GO.

What he said.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/11/2009 01:55:35 PM · #242

Originally posted by ericwoo:

...you guys must really think highly of yourselves to believe that every image you post is going to cost you all that money when someone takes it. I have seen most of the work on here. Most of us can relax and LET IT GO.

I agree that I don't have that nice of a collection of photos, but since I started watermarking I've licensed enough of my photographs to pay for a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, the Canon Ultrawide 10-22 lens, a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead, a battery grip, etc.

So, yes, watermarking has successfully been proven to work for me.

:-D

PapaBob

11/11/2009 03:00:36 PM · #243

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
Can it be possible to argue for the rights of others to watermark without wanting to watermark your own images, I think some people have the ability to go beyond their own preferences and feelings and recognize they are not the only ones on the site.

Yes, it can. I have ho issues with an unobtrusive watermark AFTER THE CHALLENGE IS OVER. What I take issue with are those that whine and bitch about not being able to place a watermark when they don't even "protect" the work they have posted that can be watermarked now. I maintain that I like Shannon's ideas of having the watermark after the fact AND having them disappear once you log in and agree not to steal images. However, that isn't good enough for some of the master artists here that make their living by participating in challenges. Its all of nothing for them. Slap a big ugly watermark that is always seen or nothing. Their stance makes me only want to go stand against them on the other side. If you are forcing me to look at it by scrolling through images on a site that I have been with for the past 4 years or so, then I am absolutely opposed. In fact, the fact that Langdon is even entertaining the idea makes me regret re-upping my membership this past Monday following the long-anticipated challenge entry size increase.

I am for the right to bear arms but I do not have a gun, does that make it wrong for me to take that stance? People can be for something even when they do not personally use that freedom. I know watermarking will hinder some of the image views but it would be at the decision of the photographer to decide if he would like to watermark. Watermarking will not completely stop theft but neither does putting money in a bank so for those that argue it can still be stolen you're right but it can slow down casual theft and make it harder. It's kind of like putting locks on a door, people who really want in will get in but it keeps the honest person honest.

PapaBob

11/11/2009 03:14:40 PM · #244

Originally posted by Photologist:

Originally posted by ericwoo:
...you guys must really think highly of yourselves to believe that every image you post is going to cost you all that money when someone takes it. I have seen most of the work on here. Most of us can relax and LET IT GO.

I agree that I don't have that nice of a collection of photos, but since I started watermarking I've licensed enough of my photographs to pay for a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, the Canon Ultrawide 10-22 lens, a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead, a battery grip, etc.

So, yes, watermarking has successfully been proven to work for me.

:-D

I like your watermark, like I said before it can be an easy way to direct folks to your personal website and maybe sell a few prints and or let someone know where they can legally acquire a copy.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/11/2009 03:26:44 PM · #245

Originally posted by PapaBob:

It's kind of like putting locks on a door, people who really want in will get in but it keeps the honest person honest.

Is this like being a little pregnant?

PapaBob

11/11/2009 03:35:42 PM · #246

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
It's kind of like putting locks on a door, people who really want in will get in but it keeps the honest person honest.

Is this like being a little pregnant?

I am not sure I have never been honest or Pregnant...:P

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/11/2009 03:41:38 PM · #247

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
It's kind of like putting locks on a door, people who really want in will get in but it keeps the honest person honest.

Is this like being a little pregnant?

I am not sure I have never been honest or Pregnant...:P

ROFLMAO!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/11/2009 04:44:53 PM · #248

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by mk:
You two are so cute. :)

Check your email. I've got news.

Phil and

ericwoo are getting married?