| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2009 09:20:12 AM · #326 |
| Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:34:35 AM · #327 |
Heres a simple idea. If a "guest" DPC browser wants to see an unwatermarked DPC image, let him or her put his CC in or pay with PayPal. When he downloads it, redirect to DPC Prints, warn with a Pop-Up message regarding Rights Usage based on the size and price, trap the IP address, IP location. If it pops up on the radar (DrAchoo Style), you have the root source of the theft. Yes yes blah blah loopholes loopholes my friend used my internet connection and I didnt know etc etc fishpaste, $1 dollar in PayPal converted to 1000 xmas cards @ $5 each might be worthwhile for the thief, but it will popup on the radar in the future for prosecution. And if 2 or more thieves downloaded the same image, nail them both. Maybe all images should end up on DPC Prints, or the user is redirected there on a right click, prt scr etc. Please dont go tear this simple concept to pieces, just look at the PRINCIPLE of it, and expand the technicalities to make it work. Even if just a deterrant message saying "your IP address has been recorded, you may only use this image for personal use" blah blah, thanks for the $1...or whatever.
Remember the guys selling stock don't really know that the 70Mb image that was sold for a front cover on Vogue for $2000-00 is also being used on the sly elsewhere, even thought they only got paid for the Vogue December '09 useage.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:59:48 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:02:53 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Challenge entries at 640 on the longest side were also from day one. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:03:57 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I dont really like the whole "if youre not selling it, youre not losing out on anything if its stolen" arguement.
Its not like a photo has a limited life span. Heres a hypothetical for you:
You are at a political event, you shoot an image of a politician shaking hands with a variety of people. Pretty mundane images for the most part, standard fare for such an event. Fast forward 2 years..that politician is running for for re-election, and it comes out that he has some shady business practices and maybe some underworld connections. You look at your images, and realize that in one of your 2 year old images, there is a picture of the politician shaking hands with some of the shady people. You now have an image that was worth very little when you snapped it, turn into a pretty decent revenue machine.
So in other words, while I may not be selling every image I have now, it doesn't mean that there is no risk for (future) profit loss if its stolen.
Man I'm long winded. |
That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.
Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is? |
Seriously? Not that far at all. I've sold images of bands that I photographed 3-4 years ago that are now in the spotlight. One of my profs has done this multiple times including images of Gordon Gecko (sp way off) and the assasination of Angelo Bruno. How do you think the whole Paparazzi deal works as well. Hell, look when the Elliot Spitzer deal happened...some photographer got paid for the glamour shots of his hooker that were showing up on the cover of every paper. Get real man, the more you post, the less you seem to understand about the actual business of photography and how to make money. |
Oh, I get it. You prefer the sleezy, underhanded side of the business of photography. I searched past challenges, and I can't seem to find that hooker, Elliot Spitzer, or Gordon Gecko anywhere. If paparazzi is your low-end lifestyle of business, I'd rather you not post that crap anyway. It really takes a lot of talent and creativity to run around taking snapshots of people, who for the most part, don't want to be photographed anyway. The more you post, the more clear your agenda becomes to me. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:03:57 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 10:04:41. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:06:04 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Oh, I get it. You prefer the sleezy, underhanded side of the business of photography. I searched past challenges, and I can't seem to find that hooker, Elliot Spitzer, or Gordon Gecko anywhere. If paparazzi is your low-end lifestyle of business, I'd rather you not post that crap anyway. It really takes a lot of talent and creativity to run around taking snapshots of people, who for the most part, don't want to be photographed anyway. The more you post, the more clear your agenda becomes to me. |
Lithium? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:06:53 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it. |
No, that was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:07:14 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Oh, I get it. You prefer the sleezy, underhanded side of the business of photography. I searched past challenges, and I can't seem to find that hooker, Elliot Spitzer, or Gordon Gecko anywhere. If paparazzi is your low-end lifestyle of business, I'd rather you not post that crap anyway. It really takes a lot of talent and creativity to run around taking snapshots of people, who for the most part, don't want to be photographed anyway. The more you post, the more clear your agenda becomes to me. |
Lithium? |
Absolutely. Great battery life. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:08:30 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Challenge entries at 640 on the longest side were also from day one. |
.
That was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. Should we define concept versus site limitation? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:09:01 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it. |
No, that was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. |
If it makes you feel better just think of that big ol watermark you're gonna be looking at as an advancement in the technological abilities of HTML. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:10:59 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it. |
No, that was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. |
If it makes you feel better just think of that big ol watermark you're gonna be looking at as an advancement in the technological abilities of HTML. |
The advancement ideas of a simpleton. Its almost sad. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:11:16 AM · #338 |
You got kick ass reading comprehension, Eric. When you are busy male nursing, do you only read certain parts of the doctors orders and jump to over act on them? BROKEN LEG?! AMPUTATE IMMEDIATELY!
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:12:47 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it. |
No, that was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. |
If it makes you feel better just think of that big ol watermark you're gonna be looking at as an advancement in the technological abilities of HTML. |
The advancement ideas of a simpleton. Its almost sad. |
Couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:15:28 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
You got kick ass reading comprehension, Eric. When you are busy male nursing, do you only read certain parts of the doctors orders and jump to over act on them? BROKEN LEG?! AMPUTATE IMMEDIATELY! |
My job doesn't require orders, and nurses don't do surgery. Good analogy, though omniscient one. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:15:59 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Remember also that challenge entries are forever. A portfolio image can be removed or watermarked at any time if you decide to restrict viewing, but DPC's Terms of Use require keeping entries visible to maintain our challenge history. A watermark, even if subtle, could provide a way to minimize situations like this. |
And we all agree with those terms of use when we post images here, just as we always have. Personally, I weigh the benefits and risks of having the image online. If the risks of losing that mythological amount of potential money outweighs having it up online, I don't post it. Challenge entries without text or watermarks is a foundational concept of DPC. From day 1, that's how its been. Right? |
Yep. So were smaller images but they changed that didn't they?
ETA. Karma beat me to it. |
No, that was an advancement in the technological abilities of cameras, computers and cheap server space. That was not a foundational concept. |
If it makes you feel better just think of that big ol watermark you're gonna be looking at as an advancement in the technological abilities of HTML. |
The advancement ideas of a simpleton. Its almost sad. |
Couldn't agree more. |
At least there may be help for you, then. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:18:08 AM · #342 |
| Enough already with the personal attacks and profanity. This is not a Rant thread, and we'd like to keep it that way. Polite discussion only, please. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:22:18 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Enough already with the personal attacks and profanity. This is not a Rant thread, and we'd like to keep it that way. Polite discussion only, please. |
Fair enough. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:33:06 AM · #344 |
| Wow Shannon, you are like a DPC Jedi Knight! ;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:53:05 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you're not trying to sell anything on any site or at the gallery down the street, then the claim of lost revenue is just bullshit. |
Originally posted by Skip:
no, it's not, and no, i'm not taking anything out of context.
you don't have to be selling something for it to have value.
the bottom line here is providing protection for people's property, regardless of "value". |
I'm not saying that there isn't value in the images, and that it's not a bad thing to have images stolen, but you know perfectly well that if you were to go to court claiming lost revenue, if you couldn't determine a monetary value beased on sales, or for items offered for sale, you're just not going to win.
There may be punitive damages for violating copyright, but yoyu simply will not be awarded lost revenue that you cannot prove.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:59:25 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Seriously? Not that far at all. I've sold images of bands that I photographed 3-4 years ago that are now in the spotlight. One of my profs has done this multiple times including images of Gordon Gecko (sp way off) and the assasination of Angelo Bruno. How do you think the whole Paparazzi deal works as well. Hell, look when the Elliot Spitzer deal happened...some photographer got paid for the glamour shots of his hooker that were showing up on the cover of every paper. Get real man, the more you post, the less you seem to understand about the actual business of photography and how to make money. |
Whatever......you just keep telling yourself that......
The average person here just plain is not likely to have your hypothetical situation happen.
And sorry, but I am quite familiar with how to make momey in a business and how you have to market your work in oreder for it to be an actual money making enterprise.
I've had my own business, and ran it reasonably successfully for about twenty years, and I choose to make my photography a part time thing because I'm more interested in being a photographer than a businessman.
Perhaps once you've been around for a while in the real world and have a clue you'll understand this.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:02:16 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.
Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is? |
Originally posted by Skip:
actually i'm in the process of negotiating a settlement with a political campaign that used an image i took three years ago in a campaign ad. it is NOT a minuscule possibility. i'm just thankful for copyright laws and my PPA membership. |
Not a valid example because you are a professional photog, and you have the experience, exposure, and track record that puts you in those kind of positions.
Of course you're going to protect yourself......you've been watermarking images and doing this as a pro for years.
You're not expecting anyone else to look out for you.
We're talking about the hue and cry of the people here who are squawking with little or no basis for their claims of piracy and lost revenue.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:13:57 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's one of the most far-reaching what-ifs that anyone has come up with yet.
Can you not see what a miniscule possibility that is? |
Originally posted by Skip:
actually i'm in the process of negotiating a settlement with a political campaign that used an image i took three years ago in a campaign ad. it is NOT a minuscule possibility. i'm just thankful for copyright laws and my PPA membership. |
Not a valid example because you are a professional photog, and you have the experience, exposure, and track record that puts you in those kind of positions.
Of course you're going to protect yourself......you've been watermarking images and doing this as a pro for years.
You're not expecting anyone else to look out for you.
We're talking about the hue and cry of the people here who are squawking with little or no basis for their claims of piracy and lost revenue. |
it is absolutely a valid argument, and you're STILL MISSING THE POINT. it has NOTHING to do with value, it has to do with protecting property, regardless of whether you are a professional or just a hobbyist.
it is no different if you live in a shack and someone steals your toaster or if you live in a mansion and someone steals your heirloom silverware...your property is yours and a thief is a thief. and, regardless of your situation or the value of your property, you should be afforded all the protections possible and reasonable for where you live. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:14:04 AM · #349 |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:15:13 AM · #350 |
| One day I might be old enough to have opinions! Haha. |
|
