| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2009 05:40:52 PM · #1 |
I like the idea, but I think it should be an option rather than something rigid.
I.e. the photographer decides if they want their images watermarked - or even just certain images.
Message edited by author 2009-12-20 17:41:27. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 09:15:10 AM · #2 |
I watermark anything that I place on the web. Even with this, I occasionally see my photos out on forums. What gets me more than anything else is when they just link to my photo and burn up my bandwidth on my servers...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2009 09:38:20 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I love the way the "Water" mark is utilized.......8>)
Fixed Linkie.... |
This type of watermark is extremely subtle... It's almost like a "where's waldo" of watermarks... I must say though, this image is pretty fricken fantastic... I can't help but going back to it... |
Really? It was one of the first things I noticed because it is on the leading line in the photo. Within a fraction of a second I saw it and I can't look at the bottom of the image anyomore without my eye being drawn to it. It is far from subtle.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2009 01:07:56 PM · #4 |
| didn't even think about that. yeah... i say just stick with what is done now... |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 05:34:59 PM · #5 |
I can say with 99.9% certainty that we will never allow watermarks on entries during the voting period -- they will destroy the anonymity of the process if nothing else. You can already apply any watermark you want to pictures in your Portfolio.
So, the only real issue is whether and how to add watermarks to entries post-voting. Whether is likely, and the how is being discussed, and will probably be subject to a survey of members. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 05:21:44 PM · #6 |
| i like whats been done. and as cool as the wheres waldo water mark is (it really is) it'd be impossible to go to every picture and put it on. what if in the rules you let ppl put their own on if they want to, just say make it small. I much prefer no water mark for looking at pictures, but hate the idea of ppl gaffing the pictures. I dont mind small, subtle or even nice watermarks when looking at pics... just a thought |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:13:30 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I love the way the "Water" mark is utilized.......8>)
Fixed Linkie.... |
This type of watermark is extremely subtle... It's almost like a "where's waldo" of watermarks... I must say though, this image is pretty fricken fantastic... I can't help but going back to it... |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:09:09 AM · #8 |
| This thread is to discuss suggestions for the site. I suggest -- for the last time -- that you quit talking about each other. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:02:00 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Yes you are correct, you do not understand and clearly this ignorance is what manifests your fear. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What is this fear you are talking about?
Fear of WHAT????? |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Some call it change. |
Wow....
You just have no idea.
You know absolutely nothing about me at all if you think that. |
In "this village", you are your words. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:53:19 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Yes you are correct, you do not understand and clearly this ignorance is what manifests your fear. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What is this fear you are talking about?
Fear of WHAT????? |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Some call it change. |
Wow....
You just have no idea.
You know absolutely nothing about me at all if you think that.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:46:37 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Yes you are correct, you do not understand and clearly this ignorance is what manifests your fear. |
What is this fear you are talking about?
Fear of WHAT????? |
Some call it change. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:44:57 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Yes you are correct, you do not understand and clearly this ignorance is what manifests your fear. |
What is this fear you are talking about?
Fear of WHAT?????
|
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:01:16 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
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. |
Dude, I don't even understand this.
The fact of the matter is I'm a big boy, I look out for my own interests, and don't blame others, or look to others to take care of me.
The only thing I have ever tried to point out in this thread is that the photog is responsible for what they do or do not post. Period.
Oh.....and I certainly don't need an invitation from you to leave. I'm sure there are much more respected and valued members of the community than you who'd like to see my taillights going off into the distance........8>) |
Yes you are correct, you do not understand and clearly this ignorance is what manifests your fear. Nobody is suggesting you leave although you act as a self proclaimed chaperon, eager to usher away us pariahs who may "naively" disagree with you.
The premise of this site is photography, keep that in mind when you expound the virtues of the virtual village's constitution upon us who see this as nothing more than a website.
Respected and valued in a virtual world? Funny. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:56:34 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by yanko:
As much as I hate it defacing the photos with an obtrusive watermark really is the only way to go, if real security is a goal... |
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 ... be some method for watermarking entry images (post-voting) for those who choose to do so. |
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:37:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
People make fun of McDonald's when they put "Caution: Coffee is HOT -- do not spill in your lap while driving" on their cups .... |
But it's there, isn't it?
Why d'ya suppose that is?
Because people are too stupid to not open scalding coffeee between their legs, and they want to sue someone else for their stupidity rather than own up to that fact.
The battle cry of the entitled and stupid, "Protect me from myself!".
You donm't hear it spoken out loud, but you see evidence of it every time some court hands out a multi-million dollar settlement to someone that cut their own hand off with a power tool they used incorrectly or some other ridiculous act of idiocy.
Funniest thing......I was raised to believe that if you did something stupid, own up to it, learn from it, and don't do it again. You didn't sue someone for your mistakes.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I'll tell you why......because I know where the liability of and responsibility for my images lie......firmly with me.
If you can give me some assurance that my efforts would be considered and implemented with assistance and editing, yeah, I'd take a crack at it, but I'm not going to do it for an exercise. I'd rather go shoot pictures.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:26:56 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
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. |
Dude, I don't even understand this.
The fact of the matter is I'm a big boy, I look out for my own interests, and don't blame others, or look to others to take care of me.
The only thing I have ever tried to point out in this thread is that the photog is responsible for what they do or do not post. Period.
Oh.....and I certainly don't need an invitation from you to leave. I'm sure there are much more respected and valued members of the community than you who'd like to see my taillights going off into the distance........8>)
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:25:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... |
If only image protection was that secure. Fact of the matter is there's no lock and the web address is already known. The apt analogy would be leaving your door wide open with a big sign in the yard that says "I'm not home, but come right on in." Now I don't trust ya so that's why I have this gate. But don't go telling people that the latch lifts right up...
The problem with protecting images on the internet is the tools used are not the tools of a criminal but the tools bordering on everyday use. Anybody who has been on the internet for more than a day will begin to realize these tools exists. The thief on the other hand is miles ahead on the learning curve. As much as I hate it defacing the photos with an obtrusive watermark really is the only way to go, if real security is a goal, the other of course being don't exposure your images in the first place.
Message edited by author 2009-12-07 23:27:15.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:19:59 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by karmat:
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. |
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.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:57:38 PM · #19 |
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 10:56:04 PM · #20 |
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. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:51:56 PM · #21 |
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. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:51:55 PM · #22 |
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?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:46:07 PM · #23 |
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. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:42:35 PM · #24 |
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.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2009 10:38:24 PM · #25 |
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.. :-) |
|
