| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2009 12:16:36 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I voted no, simply because I hate looking at watermarked pictures. When I come across them, I just skip over them. It really does ruin the shot, imo. It would be nice for each person to set their own preferences whether they want the shots watermarked. And it would also be nice to be able to over-ride on individual photos.
ok, quickly scanned through, and found this:
1. Put a stretched transparent GIF over every image. Name the GIF "Contact Owner to License Photo". If someone right clicks or drags off a photo, they'll get an empty file with an official-sounding copyright warning.
2. Enable a standardized DPC watermark as a preference on ALL challenge entries, but make them disappear when logged in. Have a pop-up copyright notice appear upon first login (maybe even with a "more info" FAQ link explaining that just because a photo is on the internet does not make it free). That way, the regulars would get a clean viewing experience, and a thief would at least have to register AND ignore a warning to swipe a clean image.
3. Consider using a script to continually clear the clipboard or remap screen grab keystrokes wherever images are shown full size. You wouldn't be able to use copy-and-paste in comments, but it would serve as a speed bump for people trying to take a screen grab when right-click doesn't work.
This works for me. I just don't want to see the watermarks. If we don't have to look at them, great!
I think this vote is skewed because there isn't enough information. People are voting yes, because they want the images protected, people are voting no because they don't want to see watermarks. But if we can have it all, I would assume that the vote would change. |
I'm with you! |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:22:17 AM · #77 |
the poll is to see if it is something we should spend time and energy on. If most people don't want dpc to watermark the images, then it really isn't worth the time and effort expended to come up with a solution.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:24:11 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by karmat:
the poll is to see if it is something we should spend time and energy on. If most people don't want dpc to watermark the images, then it really isn't worth the time and effort expended to come up with a solution. |
should've edited --
if you want some form of watermarking, but don't want to see them, then you would vote "yes" I would think. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:25:30 AM · #79 |
I voted no, because the poll isn't worded enough for 'yes' to mean "I'd like to see expanded image protection, but do NOT want to see a visible watermark."
You should NOT vote yes if you are in the same boat as I am, because that's not what the poll ASKS. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:28:06 AM · #80 |
| Like Karma said, the poll is to gauge whether we should consider watermarks, NOT how or where they're used. Visibility, position, etc. will be a separate debate. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:34:07 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
Ad Nauseum and can be circumvented by "Prt Scr" button then Paste to your Photo Application or File / Save (Web) Page As to HDD
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:37:53 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My apologies to Richard for using one of his images for fodder, but if there isn't issues with people stealing work like this right and left, exactly what is the point of getting all up in arms about what MIGHT happen?
I hate to say this, but all this squawking is a whole lot of noise over nothing.
I think we need some numbers, i.e, how many photogs are here, how many images are currently hosted on the site, and REALLY, how many have been stolen and abused? I have a feeling that shown in those terms, it would be such a ridiculously small number it'd be embarrassing.
Yes, one is too many, and it's not right, blah, blah, blah, but it's being blown way out of proportion by what seems to be a very vocal minority who don't seem to actually have the problem, and cannot even be bothered to take the necessary steps they can take on their own. They're also the ones with the rationale......"Any little bit of security can't hurt, and it's something of a deterrent, so what's to lose?"
FINE!
Remember the REAL facts.
YOUR image, YOUR responsibility. Watermar each and every one of your portfolio images, and register your copyright on the "Great & Valuable" ones that you can't watermark 'cause you entered them in a challenge. The ONLY way you can be guaranteed that your image will not be stolen is to NOT post them on the Web. Even if you have your image watermarked, and the copyright registered, you still have to take the offender to court, and win, going under the ridiculous assumption that you can prove a loss of revenue. And if someone in Europe steals your image and its copyright is registered here, good luck with that.
Doesn't it bother those of you who are so vocal that people like Richard, Irene, Lydia, Gringo, and a whole host of REALLY talented photogs aren't speaking up?
Maybe, just maybe, they aren't worried about the minute chance that their low-res, small image might get misappropriated.
I'm done beating my head against the wall now......if you people cannot see the futility of trying to protect yourself while posting images on the web, I certainly am not going to convince you. |
Jeb why are you getting so stressed about it? As I said in the other thread I'm on your side when it comes to educating people, basically if you put it on the internet you effectively lose control. But chill out, you'll give yourself a heart attack...
: ) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:55:38 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
Try to download irene's blue ribbon on the first page. That image didn't work for me. Others do, normally. |
Although you can't right-click or click-drag, I just downloaded a 140Kb file of that photograph by Irene.
All you have to do is:
"File > Save as... > Web Page, complete" (for Internet Explorer)
"File > Save Page As... > Web page, complete" (for Firefox)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:58:46 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My apologies to Richard for using one of his images for fodder, but if there isn't issues with people stealing work like this right and left, exactly what is the point of getting all up in arms about what MIGHT happen?
I hate to say this, but all this squawking is a whole lot of noise over nothing.
I think we need some numbers, i.e, how many photogs are here, how many images are currently hosted on the site, and REALLY, how many have been stolen and abused? I have a feeling that shown in those terms, it would be such a ridiculously small number it'd be embarrassing.
Yes, one is too many, and it's not right, blah, blah, blah, but it's being blown way out of proportion by what seems to be a very vocal minority who don't seem to actually have the problem, and cannot even be bothered to take the necessary steps they can take on their own. They're also the ones with the rationale......"Any little bit of security can't hurt, and it's something of a deterrent, so what's to lose?"
FINE!
Remember the REAL facts.
YOUR image, YOUR responsibility. Watermar each and every one of your portfolio images, and register your copyright on the "Great & Valuable" ones that you can't watermark 'cause you entered them in a challenge. The ONLY way you can be guaranteed that your image will not be stolen is to NOT post them on the Web. Even if you have your image watermarked, and the copyright registered, you still have to take the offender to court, and win, going under the ridiculous assumption that you can prove a loss of revenue. And if someone in Europe steals your image and its copyright is registered here, good luck with that.
Doesn't it bother those of you who are so vocal that people like Richard, Irene, Lydia, Gringo, and a whole host of REALLY talented photogs aren't speaking up?
Maybe, just maybe, they aren't worried about the minute chance that their low-res, small image might get misappropriated.
I'm done beating my head against the wall now......if you people cannot see the futility of trying to protect yourself while posting images on the web, I certainly am not going to convince you. |
Jeb why are you getting so stressed about it? As I said in the other thread I'm on your side when it comes to educating people, basically if you put it on the internet you effectively lose control. But chill out, you'll give yourself a heart attack...
: ) |
It's Jeb! |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:59:16 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
aaah, ok.. yea, that one didn't work, but every other one I tried worked fine... can we make it so every image is protected? |
It's just not fully implemented yet. Could be a cache issue, too. |
Please tell me we are not doing that transparent gif crap.... Is this a serious change going forward?
It does not stop anyone "steling" your masterpiece and it's just a PITA when I want to view image without all the clutter.... which I do a lot... |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 02:27:20 AM · #86 |
I find the oft found on DPC statement that "your images are crappy and no-one wants them or will steal them" or "Don't post it if you don't want it stolen" offensive, condescending and neanderthal in a modern digital world.
If you are happy that your image appears on DPC unprotected, the day that it illegally appears on a Chinese Greeting Card website and is sold @ $1.00 or even $0.10 each to millions of China's massive internet users base, I'm sure you will be the first to rant (Forums here are full of proof that your images have been stolen and used in this manner).
Even if you go through the process of copyrighting your image in the West, I'll eat my hat if you can make it stick in China/Russia/Bosnia etc or get any compensation if you do. Why do Police roam your suburb, why do we have house alarms and burglar proofing, CCTV cameras, IP Laws, Software and Music copyright protecting us and our belongings, be they tangible or not? Prevention is better than cure. So is education and deterrants. Are the proponents of "Don't post it on the web if you don't want it stolen" benefiting from other forms of social and civil protection? Are they enjoying listening to music on their local radio station? Of course they are. We all know its possible to rip a CD or tape music from a radio station, but BECAUSE it's possible doesn't mean it's right or that it should never be made available in the first place for others to enjoy. Protecting music is far more difficult than a website and it's images. Why the resistance to implementation? It cost's you as an individual nothing (barring a fee increase to implement new technologies) and in any event that could also be adjusted according to your personal preference during registration/renewal. No protection on your images Sir? $25-00. Protection Sir? $27-50. You get the point.
Protware with Image Guardian is just one of many webmaster tools you can use to "encrypt" website code/data and protect data/images seamlessly and it doesn't cost a fortune. It encrypts the code/data so it cannot be Saved As to your HDD, or if you can, the resultant code/data is garbage, it also splits the images up into hundreds of tiny pieces that are effectively useless (without even having to use a WM on your prescious image), it disables the Prt Scr option, prevents linking from other sites, amongst other ingenious methods. I don't know how much DPC pays it's developer(s) to implement features, improve/write code or whether Protware (or any other tool) is feasible to implement here without a re-write of DPC (not only for new images going forward but also the vast database going back to 2002), or makes the site/database slow, but it is possible. Even a few simple improvements to the site like the transparent gif overlay are a step in the right direction and cover both schools of thought in this debate.
Message edited by author 2009-11-12 07:17:14.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 03:08:48 AM · #87 |
I fear that a watermark can possibly distract from my key element in the photo. DPC should not mess with my photo.
I also don't like a DPC kind of watermark, because it has the suggestion that it is DPC owned/licensed. Will DPC also pursue the people who steal the images, or is that my own job? That there is a DPC logo on it, doesn't yet proof that it is really mine.
I wonder what my rights and possibilities are when there is a DPC logo on it. All international law considered. © 2009 A.G. Admiraal clearly states that I claim the copyright and is mainstream internationally accepted. Just some dpc stamp, which can't claim © btw, does nothing.
DPC should also consider what DPC's position is when someone puts a stolen image from another site or photographer on DPC and DPC puts its stamp on it. It could possibly get DPC involved in a lawsuit. Something the organisation should not want.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 03:11:10.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 03:19:57 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
It's already disabled. You can only right-click your own images. Anybody else's will only grab a blank GIF. |
Still works with Firefox 3.5.5, Snow Leopard. Drag to the desktop works as well, I see no GIF overlay. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 03:22:56 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Magnum_za:
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
Ad Nauseum and can be circumvented by "Prt Scr" button then Paste to your Photo Application or File / Save (Web) Page As to HDD |
And easily disabled with scripts for the browser.
Or you print to HQ PDF, load the image in PS and select the needed photos out of the PDF file. Which I once had to do, with permission, for a presentation.
Right click disable stops nobody and irritates anyone who wants to use it normally.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:05:51 AM · #90 |
I don't have the time to read though all 89 other posts and I'm sure a lot of other people don't either, can someone bring me up to speed on the idea that's going on here before I vote for watermarking?
What type of watermark and when would it be placed on the images? Would it distract voters?
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 07:06:32. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:17:40 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Jeb why are you getting so stressed about it? As I said in the other thread I'm on your side when it comes to educating people, basically if you put it on the internet you effectively lose control. But chill out, you'll give yourself a heart attack... |
No worries, I'm done.....
Enough people have squawked and this'll be a change whether we like it, it makes sense, or not.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 07:23:52.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:19:25 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
Try to download irene's blue ribbon on the first page. That image didn't work for me. Others do, normally. |
I had no problem downloading any of the 15 images shown on the homepage. Another thing that FF offers is right click, Copy Image. Then the size of the image is stored on the clipboard and if you open PS hit CRTL+N make sure the clipboard preset is on and then hit CRTL+V to paste and waa-laa. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:25:01 AM · #93 |
I like the way Smugmug blocks their photos up until the point where if you are a smugmug user or you know where to look it's harder for the average user to steal the images.
I also like the idea of saving a blank gif file, and dragging a blank file.
How would that affect Cooliris? |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:25:43 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
I can still right-click save and drag-and-drop using google chrome no problem.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 07:26:02. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 09:10:42 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Doesn't it bother those of you who are so vocal that people like Richard, Irene, Lydia, Gringo, and a whole host of REALLY talented photogs aren't speaking up?
|
Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my GOSH!!!
Did you just include me in that group, Jeb!?! Yippppeeeee!!!!
My whole month is made! THANKS BUNCHES! I'm so impressed with myself now! LOL!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 09:51:48 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I had no problem downloading any of the 15 images shown on the homepage. |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
I can still right-click save and drag-and-drop using google chrome no problem. |
Not any more! ;-P |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:02:48 AM · #97 |
If you click on 'view full-sized image' (where it is available) you can still download/save/set as background by right clicking
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:03:22 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I had no problem downloading any of the 15 images shown on the homepage. |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
I can still right-click save and drag-and-drop using google chrome no problem. |
Not any more! ;-P |
I still can (ctrl-click under Safari, OSX 10.5.8) :-/ |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:06:05 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I had no problem downloading any of the 15 images shown on the homepage. |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
I can still right-click save and drag-and-drop using google chrome no problem. |
Not any more! ;-P |
I still can (ctrl-click under Safari, OSX 10.5.8) :-/ |
I can save it as well using Firefox in windows..
Like I do, just don't enter great pictures in challenges and you won't have to worry about this discussion :)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:17:49 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I had no problem downloading any of the 15 images shown on the homepage. |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
I can still right-click save and drag-and-drop using google chrome no problem. |
Not any more! ;-P |
Yes more.
|
|
