| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2009 04:11:57 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
...would like one more added:
Have you ever officially registered any of your photos with the US, or other copyright office?
YES/NO show percentage |
In the United States, whenever you press the shutter button, you not only create a photograph, you create an implicit copyright.
This means you created property by which you are the author. So until (or unless) you specifically transfer the copyright, it is yours by default.
(disclaimer: I am not an attorney at law, I'm just a Photologist)
.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 16:13:03.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:12:45 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Enough people have squawked and this'll be a change whether we like it, it makes sense, or not. |
a lot like the current US 2000 page healthcare
bill |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:17:40 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
In the United States, whenever you press the shutter button, you not only create a photograph, you create an implicit copyright.
This means you created property by which you are the author. So until (or unless) you specifically transfer the copyright, it is yours by default. |
Yes. But did you know that you have tremendously enhanced rights when you *DO* register your images? Did you know that your chance of winning a suit against a financially superior thief is almost nil without these enhanced rights? Bet you didn't. I'd like to know how many of the watermark proponents have actually registered their photos. I bet less than 2 percent. If this is the case watermarking is a waste of resources.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 16:18:14. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:17:45 PM · #154 |
| Photol - but like I said, if you want to collect damages, apparently you do need to register. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:17:57 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Just grabbed the winning beer image that way. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Jac's blue ribbon shot is in his Workshop, which is why you can still get to it. |
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:18:51 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by Photologist:
[quote=FireBird]..
In the United States, whenever you press the shutter button, you not only create a photograph, you create an implicit copyright.
This means you created property by which you are the author. So until (or unless) you specifically transfer the copyright, it is yours by default. |
Yes. But did you know that you have tremendously enhanced rights when you *DO* register your images? Did you know that your chance of winning a suit against a financially superior thief is almost nil without these enhanced rights? Bet you didn't. I'd like to know how many of the watermark proponents have actually registered their photos. I bet less than 2 percent. If this is the case watermarking is a waste of resources. |
But as I said, you don't have to register ever, but if you do find your image lifted, you can then go and register it. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:23:19 PM · #157 |
Imagine going to an art gallery and seeing all the photographs having a big watermarked © on them. I wouldn't pay for, let alone enjoy a gallery like that...
I wouldn't bother looking at watermarked photos here on DPC or anywhere else.
Everyone who puts up photos or any other data (like personal data) on the internet should know about the risks to do so. If you don't want your photos to be "stolen" just don't put them up on the transcendent thing called "the internet". |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:23:25 PM · #158 |
FYI, In Canada:
"Automatic protection for Canadian and foreign works
When you create a work or other subject matter protected by copyright, you will automatically have copyright protection provided that, at the time of creation, you were:
1. a Canadian citizen or a person ordinarily resident in Canada;
2. a citizen or subject of, or a person ordinarily resident in, a Berne Convention country, a Universal Copyright Convention country, a Rome Convention country (for sound recordings, performer's performance and communication signals only), or a country that is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO); or
3. a citizen or subject of, or a person ordinarily resident in any country to which the Minister has extended protection by notice in the Canada Gazette.
In some cases, you would also obtain automatic copyright if your work was first published in one of the countries included among those who have signed the Berne, Universal Copyright or Rome conventions or the WTO agreement, even if you were not a citizen or subject of Canada, or of one of those countries.
In short, virtually everyone living in Canada can enjoy the benefits of automatic copyright protection. In addition, Canadians are protected in most foreign countries since most belong to one or more of the international treaties — the Berne Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention, the Rome Convention or are members of the WTO. Citizens of countries which are members of those conventions enjoy the benefits of Canadian copyright law in Canada. Canada also extends protection to certain non-member countries by way of notice in the Canada Gazette.
Sound recordings themselves are protected internationally under the Rome Convention and under the copyright treaties, but there is quite a variation internationally as to the nature of the protection given to sound recordings. In Canada, sound recordings enjoy a broad range of protection under the Copyright Act."
This is from the Government's website.
Which then leads to this.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 16:29:32. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:34:01 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
Imagine going to an art gallery and seeing all the photographs having a big watermarked © on them. I wouldn't pay for, let alone enjoy a gallery like that...
I wouldn't bother looking at watermarked photos here on DPC or anywhere else.
Everyone who puts up photos or any other data (like personal data) on the internet should know about the risks to do so. If you don't want your photos to be "stolen" just don't put them up on the transcendent thing called "the internet". |
Fine, then image your so called "art gallery" and lets compare it to the internet, as you have...
Your art gallery will have no walls, no ceiling, no doors, no locks, nothing.... Nothing to prevent the common onlooker to stroll along and yank it off of whatever imaginary hook you have it hanging on and then walk away with it... Obviously, this is not a realistic scenario so comparing it to watermarking an image on the internet is just plain, well, silly...
No artist would ever display their art in this pretend gallery as they would be a fool to do so.. Of course no one wants to walk into a gallery and see watermarks on the art.. It's not necessary.. You can't just take a piece of art off the wall and walk out with it.. Unless, your Thomas Crown of course.. :-) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:34:38 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by FireBird:
Just grabbed the winning beer image that way. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Jac's blue ribbon shot is in his Workshop, which is why you can still get to it. |
|
I adblocked the pix.gif overlay and I can now save any image including the Irene image. Of course it blocks the reply gifs too! LOL Also
blocks the page gifs. LOL But I created a macro with a 2 key combo that allows me to switch back and forth at the press of 2 keys. So the DPC right clik blocking is trivial to defeat. And very much like many of the changes after 9/11.
Public relations, nothing else.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:36:28 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
So the DPC right clik blocking is trivial to defeat. |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I hate that people keep pointing out 5000 other ways that I can steal your photo.
We get it, there is more than one way to do it, and if someone is resolute enough, they will get it if they want it. But most of the measures that are being implemented/discussed are deterrents. They might just be enough to prevent someone from "casually" lifting your image. No matter what, if its online, there is a risk of someone using it for thier own purposes, but bottom line is that a simple measure may be enough of a deterrent. |
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:54:22 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=FireBird]So the DPC right clik blocking is trivial to defeat. |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I hate that people keep pointing out 5000 other ways that I can steal your photo. |
Two minutes after my post I discovered a way with adblock to block pix.gif without affecting any other gifs on the site.
You might want to suggest to Langdon that the gifname be the unique image number of the underlying image. That would make it difficult to adblock the gif overlay on a global basis. That would require much more effort to overcome. And I doubt it would require much on his part to achieve. I can provide helpful suggestions even when I disagree with the process. :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 04:58:37 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
Imagine going to an art gallery and seeing all the photographs having a big watermarked © on them. I wouldn't pay for, let alone enjoy a gallery like that...
I wouldn't bother looking at watermarked photos here on DPC or anywhere else.
Everyone who puts up photos or any other data (like personal data) on the internet should know about the risks to do so. If you don't want your photos to be "stolen" just don't put them up on the transcendent thing called "the internet". |
Fine, then image your so called "art gallery" and lets compare it to the internet, as you have...
Your art gallery will have no walls, no ceiling, no doors, no locks, nothing.... Nothing to prevent the common onlooker to stroll along and yank it off of whatever imaginary hook you have it hanging on and then walk away with it... Obviously, this is not a realistic scenario so comparing it to watermarking an image on the internet is just plain, well, silly...
No artist would ever display their art in this pretend gallery as they would be a fool to do so.. Of course no one wants to walk into a gallery and see watermarks on the art.. It's not necessary.. You can't just take a piece of art off the wall and walk out with it.. Unless, your Thomas Crown of course.. :-) |
you didn't get me. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:01:08 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by Photologist:
In the United States, whenever you press the shutter button, you not only create a photograph, you create an implicit copyright.
This means you created property by which you are the author. So until (or unless) you specifically transfer the copyright, it is yours by default. |
Yes. But did you know that you have tremendously enhanced rights when you *DO* register your images? Did you know that your chance of winning a suit against a financially superior thief is almost nil without these enhanced rights? Bet you didn't. I'd like to know how many of the watermark proponents have actually registered their photos. I bet less than 2 percent. If this is the case watermarking is a waste of resources. |
We're talking about two different issues:
1) Creating a deterrent for thieves.
2) Registering your image with the copyright office.
You can register all you like, but if it is not watermarked, someone can take and use your photo. It's like having automobile insurance...that doesn't stop a thief from stealing your vehicle.
On the other hand, a well-placed and well-thought-out watermark increases the chances of a thief moving on to another (easier) photograph to steal. It's like having a car alarm with a red-blinking light--increasing the probability that a car thief will pass your car up for an easier target.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:20:33 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
We're talking about two different issues:
1) Creating a deterrent for thieves.
2) Registering your image with the copyright office.
You can register all you like, but if it is not watermarked, someone can take and use your photo. It's like having automobile insurance...that doesn't stop a thief from stealing your vehicle.
On the other hand, a well-placed and well-thought-out watermark increases the chances of a thief moving on to another (easier) photograph to steal. It's like having a car alarm with a red-blinking light--increasing the probability that a car thief will pass your car up for an easier target. |
I consider both issues to be linked. Nothing you do will keep a thief from stealing your photo, as nothing you do can will keep a thief from stealing your car. Registering you copyright is like the insurance you describe. It compensates you when your work is stolen. Someone who has not registered their work displayed online hasn't taken the first step. Why should they expect another party to take the second step(watermarking)for them?
Don't get me wrong, I understand you feelings about your work being stolen. I just don't think it's a valuable use of resources to watermark and stymie right-clicking. I think NikonJeb has it right though..... enough ruckus has been raised about this that Langdon will do something. Witness the quick implementation of right-click stymieing.
Recent upgrades on the site may indicate that Langdon is paying more attention. Could be a good time to lobby for other changes that need to be made. After the recent increase in file sizes I'm probably going to be back in the active member rolls soon. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:23:40 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
[ After the recent increase in file sizes I'm probably going to be back in the active member rolls soon. |
Now that's soemthing positive.. and, you're right.. The big ears do seem to be listening closely right now, so maybe it's time to roll out the xmas list and start asking.. :-) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:46:33 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
Imagine going to an art gallery and seeing all the photographs having a big watermarked © on them. I wouldn't pay for, let alone enjoy a gallery like that...
I wouldn't bother looking at watermarked photos here on DPC or anywhere else.
Everyone who puts up photos or any other data (like personal data) on the internet should know about the risks to do so. If you don't want your photos to be "stolen" just don't put them up on the transcendent thing called "the internet". |
Fine, then image your so called "art gallery" and lets compare it to the internet, as you have...
Your art gallery will have no walls, no ceiling, no doors, no locks, nothing.... Nothing to prevent the common onlooker to stroll along and yank it off of whatever imaginary hook you have it hanging on and then walk away with it... Obviously, this is not a realistic scenario so comparing it to watermarking an image on the internet is just plain, well, silly...
No artist would ever display their art in this pretend gallery as they would be a fool to do so.. Of course no one wants to walk into a gallery and see watermarks on the art.. It's not necessary.. You can't just take a piece of art off the wall and walk out with it.. Unless, your Thomas Crown of course.. :-) |
It was mentioned earlier about only showing the watermarks when viewers are not logged in (like the way the ads are displayed). There's your walls. Is this a fair compromise?
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 17:47:00.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:47:44 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
(disclaimer: I am not an attorney at law, I'm just a Photologist)
. |
And that one made me look up who you actually are!
I'm all for a happy medium (to stay on topic). |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 05:50:44 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by Photologist:
(disclaimer: I am not an attorney at law, I'm just a Photologist) |
And that one made me look up who you actually are! |
LOL!
Photologist
Pho*tol"o*gist\, n. One who studies or expounds the laws of light.
;-)
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 17:51:44.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:20:30 PM · #170 |
| I've seen several requests for finding a happy medium with watermarks, so here ya go. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:27:47 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by yanko:
It was mentioned earlier about only showing the watermarks when viewers are not logged in (like the way the ads are displayed). There's your walls. Is this a fair compromise? |
This seems like a perfectly good compromise if it's feasible. I'd be on board with this. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 07:47:03 PM · #172 |
I personally don't want my images to have a watermark as I don't back up my images. I use DPC as my photo library for all my challenge entries and often I will drag one of them to my desktop to post on another forum some or send somewhere else like to friends or family or to have it printed. I like the idea of having the option to choose whether you want a watermark or not. That way everybody will be happy.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 19:49:00. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 08:26:03 PM · #173 |
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 22:15:13.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 08:43:13 PM · #174 |
so my guess was wrong... LOL...
edit to note Jeb, I never once said what you can or can't do... you've really gone off the deep end on this one..
all I did was point out the fact that you only included a portion of his sentence... It was clearly the portion that pertains to your opinion and taken out of context would seem he was only agreeing with you... That's all..
I'm not telling you what to do or what not to do, what to think or what not to think.. what to ask for or what not to ask for.. so, carry on with your rant about how tragic this entire ordeal is and how horrible & ungrateful we all our... sorry for the interruption.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 20:47:29. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 08:51:36 PM · #175 |
What was I thinking about? Oh yeah...what? I think it had something to do with, um, the ahhh, ummm, yeah those things...or was it these things...you know. What do you think?
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 20:57:41. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:14:48 PM EDT.
