Watermark? huh? - DPChallenge Forums

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

12/07/2009 08:24:51 PM · #202

Well there's also the new tool in Windows 7 (maybe in Vista as well) called the Snipping Tool. I just noticed it in my start menu. It's basically an enhanced version of Print Screen except you can make fine selections (think rectangular selection and the lasso tool in photoshop) and you don't need to open up any other programs to save what you capture. Talk about convenient.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 20:28:19.

dd1989

Fujifilm x100

12/07/2009 08:26:36 PM · #203

Firefox + Adblock Extension.

Right click image, Click "Adblock"

Block "//www.dpchallenge.com/images/pix.gif"

Job done, DPCHallenge back to how it was before, the transparent layer won't even load.

I never reuse people's images, or save them, I might show a friend one by using a direct JPG link, I have no interest in theft, however the point I am making is, within 30 seconds I have circumnavigated the entire point of this layer. Adblock is a highly popular extension to Firefox, it's not rocket science.

Works with NoScript too.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/07/2009 08:41:14 PM · #204

Yes, we certainly appreciate people continuing to post specific circumventions to image protection -- perhaps I'll change the thread title to "How To Steal Images From DPC -- A Primer for Web Newbies" ...

I can assure you that virtually every method of image protection -- and all the flaws -- have been discussed and considered already. Some form of watermarking will almost certainly be forthcoming, but I can't say just when; it depends partly on developing a more extensive survey of member opinion, and more importantly, Langdon's ability/availabilty to code whatever we decide.

dd1989

Fujifilm x100

12/07/2009 09:06:00 PM · #205

//farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/2225976988_9f0d5109c7_b.jpg

This is a really good example of watermarking. At first you don't see it then it becomes apparent.

12/07/2009 09:11:59 PM · #206

Originally posted by dd1989:

//farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/2225976988_9f0d5109c7_b.jpg

This is a really good example of watermarking. At first you don't see it then it becomes apparent.

I love the way the "Water" mark is utilized.......8>)

Fixed Linkie....

Mousie

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/07/2009 09:20:35 PM · #207

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So you're leaning towards security by obscurity, then?

I think it's a real disservice to make people feel like they're EVER safe from theft when publishing on the internet. By pointing out the numerous, unstoppable, REMARKABLY SIMPLE ways to circumvent even the most elaborate web protection schemes, we're educating the average user (perhaps scaring them is a better word) so they can make informed decisions about the risks they'll run publishing online vs. the benefits they can reap from being seen online.

Without this information, you have a bunch of ill-informed people crossing their fingers and hoping everyone plays nice with their precious artwork, when they should really be limiting the publishing of their work online if they truly care about limiting how it's used, without resorting to court cases after discovering infringement.

The choice of 'increased security' for increased comfort when publishing online is a false choice. There is no increase in security when the same, simple image (text, anything on the screen) copying techniques that have worked for DECADES continue to work quite reliably. These facts SHOULD make people uncomfortable. It's only then that they can make a real choice, balancing risks with reward.

12/07/2009 09:43:02 PM · #208

Originally posted by Mousie:

I think it's a real disservice to make people feel like they're EVER safe from theft when publishing on the internet. By pointing out the numerous, unstoppable, REMARKABLY SIMPLE ways to circumvent even the most elaborate web protection schemes, we're educating the average user (perhaps scaring them is a better word) so they can make informed decisions about the risks they'll run publishing online vs. the benefits they can reap from being seen online.

Without this information, you have a bunch of ill-informed people crossing their fingers and hoping everyone plays nice with their precious artwork, when they should really be limiting the publishing of their work online if they truly care about limiting how it's used, without resorting to court cases after discovering infringement.

The choice of 'increased security' for increased comfort when publishing online is a false choice. There is no increase in security when the same, simple image (text, anything on the screen) copying techniques that have worked for DECADES continue to work quite reliably. These facts SHOULD make people uncomfortable. It's only then that they can make a real choice, balancing risks with reward.

Bravo!

Emboldened in the hope that people will read this and understand what their options and responsibilities are rather than trying to thrust the onus of image protection onto the site.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 21:46:59.

Ivo

12/07/2009 09:52:43 PM · #209

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Mousie:
I think it's a real disservice to make people feel like they're EVER safe from theft when publishing on the internet. By pointing out the numerous, unstoppable, REMARKABLY SIMPLE ways to circumvent even the most elaborate web protection schemes, we're educating the average user (perhaps scaring them is a better word) so they can make informed decisions about the risks they'll run publishing online vs. the benefits they can reap from being seen online.

Without this information, you have a bunch of ill-informed people crossing their fingers and hoping everyone plays nice with their precious artwork, when they should really be limiting the publishing of their work online if they truly care about limiting how it's used, without resorting to court cases after discovering infringement.

The choice of 'increased security' for increased comfort when publishing online is a false choice. There is no increase in security when the same, simple image (text, anything on the screen) copying techniques that have worked for DECADES continue to work quite reliably. These facts SHOULD make people uncomfortable. It's only then that they can make a real choice, balancing risks with reward.

Bravo!

Emboldened in the hope that people will read this and understand what their options and responsibilities are rather than trying to thrust the onus of image protection onto the site.

The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Mousie

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/07/2009 10:01:49 PM · #210

Originally posted by Ivo:

The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Uh, what?

I mean, your reference doesn't even make sense! To what imminent yet non-existent threat are you drawing a parallel? Or are you saying that Jeb and I are literally chickens? Chickens don't post what they create online without any protection whatsoever, hurtling balls-out into the creative commons, like I do. Your post is simply incoherent.

Perhaps you're just here to take a swipe at people you don't like, without contributing any substance?

Signed,

Chicken Little

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 22:07:58.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/07/2009 10:15:30 PM · #211

Originally posted by Ivo:

The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Originally posted by Mousie:

I too feel free to post my images about, knowingly accepting my fate.

I also have a very good grasp on the market value of my work, and don't really much worry about someone lifting one here and there.

I'm just not that puffed up about my work.

I am, however, eagerly awaiting your theft-proof process.

Otherwise, it must just be hot air I hear whistling past.

ETA: Oh....and how are the simple facts presented desperate and stagnant?

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 22:20:53.

kandykarml

Nikon D80

12/07/2009 10:21:49 PM · #212

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Ivo:
The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Uh, what?

I mean, your reference doesn't even make sense! To what imminent yet non-existent threat are you drawing a parallel? Or are you saying that Jeb and I are literally chickens? Chickens don't post what they create online without any protection whatsoever, hurtling balls-out into the creative commons, like I do. Your post is simply incoherent.

Perhaps you're just here to take a swipe at people you don't like, without contributing any substance?

Signed,

Chicken Little

Oh myyy, this reads like literature from the Shakesperean era... a gag pun if you must thrust upon thee with your wit. I tend to think his comment has more to do with previous posts then yours and Jebs alone...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/07/2009 10:28:08 PM · #213

To everyone that feels dpc shouldn't watermark because if you don't want your image stolen, you shouldn't put it on the 'net:

DPC is a business, of sorts, for Langdon. That "business" requires that people put their images online. If said business takes this attitude, and encourages people not to put images up, it kinda defeats the business. However, if said business can help deter the common thief (and based on the several tickets we have received, we *have* done that), and find an equitable solution to at least slow down the more determined thief, wouldn't that make more sense? For the business?

Ivo

12/07/2009 10:28:33 PM · #214

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Ivo:
The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Uh, what? Try harder.

I mean, your reference doesn't even make sense! To what imminent yet non-existent threat are you drawing a parallel? You are near INCOHERENT.

Or are you just here to take a swipe at people you don't like?

You obviously feel that you should be taken seriously when you place little value on the wishes of the many. Implying that the watermark scenario is being paraded as the "ultimate solution" to image theft is exemplified by the narrow minded, terse and dismissive undertone of your message. Yes, there are some pretty clever photographers on this site who, by chance, may value their own image than you apparently value yours. Go figure?? Is it possible that they may have a voice or should they bow to the whims of those who have not yet received enough praise to believe their work is unique enough to protect with a watermark?

Every effort has been made to table a sensible and selective solution to calm the worry of those who have a legitimate beef with the frequency of which photos have been stolen - FROM THIS SITE. They should be offered a reasonable mechanism to protect their work while on captive display and also the encouragement to keep participating.

I sense those with the greatest objections place a greater value on the process rather than the finished product. The process will still be there and nobody is threatening to take that away. If you do not value your finished product enough to protect it, that is solely your choice. Others do and wish to continue participating regardless of how little value you may place upon your images. This measure will allow them to feel a bit more secure without interrupting whatever enjoyment you garner from lambasting them.

Welcome to the real world and quit standing in the way of progress. I fear if we lose those photographers who value their work, we will be left with cynics who only value process and produce nothing unique and worthy of protection.

12/07/2009 10:28:37 PM · #215

Originally posted by kandykarml:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Ivo:
The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Uh, what?

I mean, your reference doesn't even make sense! To what imminent yet non-existent threat are you drawing a parallel? Or are you saying that Jeb and I are literally chickens? Chickens don't post what they create online without any protection whatsoever, hurtling balls-out into the creative commons, like I do. Your post is simply incoherent.

Perhaps you're just here to take a swipe at people you don't like, without contributing any substance?

Signed,

Chicken Little

Oh myyy, this reads like literature from the Shakesperean era... a gag pun if you must thrust upon thee with your wit. I tend to think his comment has more to do with previous posts then yours and Jebs alone...

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone other than the photog responsible for the security of the image?

And is there any foolproof way to guarantee that an image cannot be lifted and used by a competent thief?

Why then so much effort put forth wasting others' time and efforts to prevent what you cannot prevent?

Can you not just accept what most people know and that's that you have to make the choice to risk the image?

I get a little bit tired of having snarky comments made because you want to impose your will on others rather than make the choice only you can make.

You can hint and allude to this that or the other thing, traffic will go elsewhere, other sites do this or that, but you know damn well that if someone wants an image you have on line, it's theirs.

I keep getting sucked into this damn thread 'cause it just boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people just refuse to accept this.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/07/2009 10:32:24 PM · #216

Originally posted by karmat:

But you HAVE to acknowledge, especially if you're going to take the "responsibility for the client tack", that it is absolutely on the photog to ultimately assume liability for the image if they post it up, regardless of what you do for security.

I'm not sure why this keeps getting circumvented. Everybody wants the site to go to extra measures to ensure that each and every member knows how to save the original image file from the camera that it doesn't get damaged by transfer software, yet nobody wants to face this fact?

kandykarml

Nikon D80

12/07/2009 10:38:24 PM · #217

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by kandykarml:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Ivo:
The rantings of desperate and stagnant minds. lol

Yes, the sky IS falling. cluck cluck

Uh, what?

I mean, your reference doesn't even make sense! To what imminent yet non-existent threat are you drawing a parallel? Or are you saying that Jeb and I are literally chickens? Chickens don't post what they create online without any protection whatsoever, hurtling balls-out into the creative commons, like I do. Your post is simply incoherent.

Perhaps you're just here to take a swipe at people you don't like, without contributing any substance?

Signed,

Chicken Little

Oh myyy, this reads like literature from the Shakesperean era... a gag pun if you must thrust upon thee with your wit. I tend to think his comment has more to do with previous posts then yours and Jebs alone...

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone other than the photog responsible for the security of the image?

And is there any foolproof way to guarantee that an image cannot be lifted and used by a competent thief?

Why then so much effort put forth wasting others' time and efforts to prevent what you cannot prevent?

Can you not just accept what most people know and that's that you have to make the choice to risk the image?

I get a little bit tired of having snarky comments made because you want to impose your will on others rather than make the choice only you can make.

You can hint and allude to this that or the other thing, traffic will go elsewhere, other sites do this or that, but you know damn well that if someone wants an image you have on line, it's theirs.

I keep getting sucked into this damn thread 'cause it just boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people just refuse to accept this.

Ok ok ok.. I didn't mean it to be snarky.. I was just reading it, and if I used a very shakesperean accent, then well, it fit.. So, it was kinda funny to me.. Just trying to lighten the mood.. Didn't mean to make it worse.. Onto the next issue.. Hey, go check out the funny poster I put up.. :-)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/07/2009 10:42:35 PM · #218

Originally posted by Ivo:

Every effort has been made to table a sensible and selective solution to calm the worry of those who have a legitimate beef with the frequency of which photos have been stolen - FROM THIS SITE. They should be offered a reasonable mechanism to protect their work while on captive display and also the encouragement to keep participating.

I sense those with the greatest objections place a greater value on the process rather than the finished product. The process will still be there and nobody is threatening to take that away. If you do not value your finished product enough to protect it, that is solely your choice. Others do and wish to continue participating regardless of how little value you may place upon your images. This measure will allow them to feel a bit more secure without interrupting whatever enjoyment you garner from lambasting them.

Welcome to the real world and quit standing in the way of progress. I fear if we lose those photographers who value their work, we will be left with cynics who only value process and produce nothing unique and worthy of protection.

Talk about Chicken Little!

What a load of crap! What progress? Where's the theftproof solution?

It's Band-Aids......I don't really give a rat's ass how many you put on it, it's NOT going to stop the bleeding entirely.

If there's an image that you feel is REALLY valuable, why on earth would you upload it to the Web?

Are you NUTS?????

You guys go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, but the righteous crap is just that. You're NOT offering anything more than a small measure, and like it or not, it is a change and detracts from the experience here.

And don't forget the last little tidbit either......IF your image gets stolen, no matter what the circumstances, it's on you to go after the offender, incur every bit of aggravation and expense involved, and good luck if the theft occurs outside your jurisdiction, which is not only possible, but most likely.

Don't forget while you're getting all your ducks in a row here:

By Ivo: Every effort has been made to table a sensible and selective solution to calm the worry of those who have a legitimate beef with the frequency of which photos have been stolen - FROM THIS SITE. They should be offered a reasonable mechanism to protect their work while on captive display and also the encouragement to keep participating

DP Challenge will not be involved in your efforts and case should you decide to go after whatever thief happens to grab your image.

It simply isn't part of the deal.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 22:44:49.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/07/2009 10:46:07 PM · #219

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, we certainly appreciate people continuing to post specific circumventions to image protection -- perhaps I'll change the thread title to "How To Steal Images From DPC -- A Primer for Web Newbies" ...

So you're leaning towards security by obscurity, then?

Not exactly -- you can inform people that image security is markedly imperfect without publishing specific directions as to methods for circumventing it.

Plus, if you'd read/included the rest of my post, you'd know that I was really pointing out that this was getting quite repetitious -- that all this information was previously posted here -- and that further steps were in the works.

Just because I acknowledge (and inform others) that house burglary is a real threat doesn't mean it's a good idea to post my address and detailed instructions on lock-picking ...

For the record, I'd like to point out again that anyone who wants to watermark and non-entry image posted here is free to do so now, and that there will (someday) be some method for watermarking entry images (post-voting) for those who choose to do so.

I further suggest you all quit sniping at each other NOW -- your opinions of each other are not germane to this discussion. Frankly, I'm getting quite tired of the name-calling, and I'll start reporting your posts for SC discussion/action if I see any more.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 22:49:47.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/07/2009 10:51:55 PM · #220

Originally posted by GeneralE:

For the record, I'd like to point out again that anyone who wants to watermark and non-entry image posted here is free to do so now, and that there will (someday) be some method for watermarking entry images (post-voting) for those who choose to do so.

Awesome, super, great......that should make a lot of folks happy.

Would it be asking too much for there to be an official stance from DPC warning people that they do post images on the site, and the Web at large at their own risk, and if they do so, they should think carefully?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

12/07/2009 10:51:56 PM · #221

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by karmat:
To everyone that feels dpc shouldn't watermark because if you don't want your image stolen, you shouldn't put it on the 'net:

DPC is a business, of sorts, for Langdon. That "business" requires that people put their images online. If said business takes this attitude, and encourages people not to put images up, it kinda defeats the business. However, if said business can help deter the common thief (and based on the several tickets we have received, we *have* done that), and find an equitable solution to at least slow down the more determined thief, wouldn't that make more sense? For the business?

But you HAVE to acknowledge, especially if you're going to take the "responsibility for the client tack", that it is absolutely on the photog to ultimately assume liability for the image if they post it up, regardless of what you do for security.

I'm not sure why this keeps getting circumvented. Everybody wants the site to go to extra measures to ensure that each and every member knows how to save the original image file from the camera that it doesn't get damaged by transfer software, yet nobody wants to face this fact?

Yes, Jeb, it is the ultimate responsibility of the photographer. However, as it stands now, there is not way that I can protect my challenge entries, should I choose to do that. Portfolio images, I can do whatever I want -- I can put them up "nekkid," with a subtle watermark, or a with a big ole' red X to protect myself.

It's not being circumvented -- it's simply not practical. The challenges are ESSENTIAL to the site -- dpCHALLENGE. Without them, we would be a glorified hosting service. Photographers who CHOOSE to enter challenges, should also have some option to help protect their property, if they choose to use it.

The ultimate "responsibility" is to not enter challenges. Now, while that increases my overall chances for finishing in the top 25 or so, it really doesn't make sense from a business point of view.

Message edited by author 2009-12-07 22:52:11.

Ivo

12/07/2009 10:56:04 PM · #222

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Ivo:
Every effort has been made to table a sensible and selective solution to calm the worry of those who have a legitimate beef with the frequency of which photos have been stolen - FROM THIS SITE. They should be offered a reasonable mechanism to protect their work while on captive display and also the encouragement to keep participating.

I sense those with the greatest objections place a greater value on the process rather than the finished product. The process will still be there and nobody is threatening to take that away. If you do not value your finished product enough to protect it, that is solely your choice. Others do and wish to continue participating regardless of how little value you may place upon your images. This measure will allow them to feel a bit more secure without interrupting whatever enjoyment you garner from lambasting them.

Welcome to the real world and quit standing in the way of progress. I fear if we lose those photographers who value their work, we will be left with cynics who only value process and produce nothing unique and worthy of protection.

Talk about Chicken Little!

What a load of crap! What progress? Where's the theftproof solution?

It's Band-Aids......I don't really give a rat's ass how many you put on it, it's NOT going to stop the bleeding entirely.

If there's an image that you feel is REALLY valuable, why on earth would you upload it to the Web?

Are you NUTS?????

You guys go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, but the righteous crap is just that. You're NOT offering anything more than a small measure, and like it or not, it is a change and detracts from the experience here.

And don't forget the last little tidbit either......IF your image gets stolen, no matter what the circumstances, it's on you to go after the offender, incur every bit of aggravation and expense involved, and good luck if the theft occurs outside your jurisdiction, which is not only possible, but most likely.

Don't forget while you're getting all your ducks in a row here:

By Ivo: Every effort has been made to table a sensible and selective solution to calm the worry of those who have a legitimate beef with the frequency of which photos have been stolen - FROM THIS SITE. They should be offered a reasonable mechanism to protect their work while on captive display and also the encouragement to keep participating

DP Challenge will not be involved in your efforts and case should you decide to go after whatever thief happens to grab your image.

It simply isn't part of the deal.

And when you identify an issue of greater relevance to you than maybe some others, it may be time for you to leave rather than table ideas which will enable you to enjoyably continue here. This is what you are suggesting. It will be interesting to see if you will be eager to fall on your own sword when that time comes. I'll bet you'll experience a convenient shift in values and an unexpected bout of memory loss.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/07/2009 10:57:38 PM · #223

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
For the record, I'd like to point out again that anyone who wants to watermark and non-entry image posted here is free to do so now, and that there will (someday) be some method for watermarking entry images (post-voting) for those who choose to do so.

Awesome, super, great......that should make a lot of folks happy.

Would it be asking too much for there to be an official stance from DPC warning people that they do post images on the site, and the Web at large at their own risk, and if they do so, they should think carefully?

People make fun of McDonald's when they put "Caution: Coffee is HOT -- do not spill in your lap while driving" on their cups ....

Why don't you write down the suggested disclaimer to be added to the Terms of Use and send it to Langdon -- none of the rest of us can do anything about it anyway.

12/07/2009 11:19:59 PM · #224

Originally posted by karmat:

I'm not saying that I don't think it's a fine idea to offer those who want it the opportunity to watermark their challenge entries after the fact. Go for it if it makes you feel better.

I just think that there seems to be no reasonable mention that this isn't an end to theft, nor can it be, and the better the image, the more desirable, the more reason to expect that a more adept thief will go after it. If you think that someone is likely to want to steal it, doesn't it stand to reason that it's not just going to be an officeworker looking for a new wallpaper?

Originally posted by karmat:

The ultimate "responsibility" is to not enter challenges. Now, while that increases my overall chances for finishing in the top 25 or so, it really doesn't make sense from a business point of view.

Exactly.....go in with your eyes open. register the copyright, do the watermarking afterwards, post up a copy all watermarked to death, and with caveats all over the place in the image description that it's your image and that you'll prosecute......TAKE THE STEPS.

Thing is.......I've been in the position of having to resolve problems in the real world and I've found that there are battles that are worth the effort, and those that you get to chalk up to experience. I know I certainly don't see my photography as something I'm going to waste a lot of time and money to protect. I'm just a lot more concerned about the really important things in life. That doesn't mean that I don't care about my work......I love it that it's okay to tell me I don't value my work simply because it's less important to me that the next guy, but I'm a prick if I say to take accept your own responsibility, which I've done....but I simply am not going to expend a lot of time and effort worrying about it. I'm a whole lot more concerned about the work I'm doing now, and will be doing in the future.

I will always know the images I've shot, and the people whom I care about will know, so I don't really care. And if someone here would get their jollies off ripping off my entire portfolio off and giving it to some Russian photostock just to try and prove a point, what would that really be proving?

Anyone that's here would recognize it iof they saw it, so it really wouldn't matter if it's up somewhere else, would it?

I don't have time or interest in doing micro-stock, and I gave up on the arts & crafts show circuit.

These are all reasoned, and intentional choices I have made as my responsibility to what I want from my photography. I post on the web fully aware of my risks. I am not going to make serious money with my photography simply because I want to be a photographer, not a photography business owner. To me, it doesn't make any sense to participate here. or on any site, without taking a good hard look at what your options are as a photographer. Look at them, make your choices, and accept the result. Don't like the way things go? Change your operating style to fix it. But nobody will ever care about, or protect your images better than you will, or can.

I'd be willing to bet that the serious pros, the people who are actually making money from their photography, don't put much up on the web outside of some samples. They're also porobably not going to post up anything that's going to suck up a bunch of time and money to go after if they think it's valuable.

yanko