| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2009 10:03:46 AM · #201 |
That, and increasing challenge entry sizes to 800x800 @ 300k. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:12:33 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Actually, it has been going on for years longer than that ISOLATED incident. Now that you've mentioned it, please show us all how a watermark could have remained unobtrusive AND still protected that original image. |
Care to make a wager? I'll bet 500 dollars to your hundred that Doc's photo wasn't stolen until AFTER the challenge. Hence, the watermark option for challenge entries POST challenge could've prevented it.
Originally posted by Phil:
I don't like sushi. I've tried it many different ways and I just can't get into it. By your way of thinking - because I don't like sushi - then I should believe no one else could like it either, nor should it be made available to them. |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Super argument. I imagine you can't even see the obvious fallacious argument there, can you?
|
Actually, no. You and Jeb have proven over and over your lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn't see things your way.
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 10:13:38. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:13:24 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
That, and increasing challenge entry sizes to 800x800 @ 300k. |
Opps, yep. I overlooked the big one. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:16:49 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
I suggest to centralize the water mark here in DPC, more organized and professional looking,
A DPC watermark on all the challenge entries, and an Option to keep it after the vote is over. For those who are suggesting no watermark during voting .... Really?!!
You mean all what it takes to obtain a copy from whatever picture in here is to register?
If you want to make things really neat and customized,
You can create a script or whatever is the way, that adds the photographer info under the DPC watermark when the challenge is over, with an option to turn it on and off,
Something like having the DPC logo in in medium size and beneath it something like '' This photography belongs to: '' Member Name '' All rights reserved c,
What would change from a member to another is only the name.
People who don't want that .. fine .. opt out,
I was totally against increasing the size of the challenge entries, now its is voted, nothing but the respect to the majority's vote.
Can it be possible to argue for the rights of others to watermark without wanting to watermark your own images, I think some people have the ability to go beyond their own preferences and feelings and recognize they are not the only ones on the site.
It really get on my nerve to see people threatening to collect their toys and leave if water mark this or that ..
I think the right direction is to wait till this poll is over, another poll to see if we want the Watermark as well applied during the challenges, and finally applying whatever we voted on.
Regards, |
You are also very hypocritical in your opinions. You are so hell bent against site growth with size IMPROVEMENTS and hell bent on a stupid ass watermark, YET you don't watermark your portfolio images OR your own damn website. What the hell is the difference needing a watermark for challenge entries? Is it your delusions of grandeur? You cannot point to a tangible loss from not having a watermark. Hell, how much are you "losing" with all those unprotected portfolio and website images? It must be millions.
Where is the difference in you posting your own images without a watermark, but you want the site to take responsibility for your challenge entries? Your hypocritical spew is really annoying me. Either practice what you so fervently preach about, or sit down and be quiet. It is YOUR responsibility to protect YOUR images. Register your copyrights and keep them locked away if it is such a freaking issue. I am growing weary of this watermark bullsh!t and the idea that Langdon is even entertaining it. Where is the ticket to request a refund on membership? This is ridiculous. I'd rather you just keep your precious, priceless works of art to yourself. |
For the life of me I cannot understand the bitter anger that you are showing over this.
I don't like sushi. I've tried it many different ways and I just can't get into it. By your way of thinking - because I don't like sushi - then I should believe no one else could like it either, nor should it be made available to them.
Because this photographer doesn't watermark his images that means he shouldn't want anyone else to have the ability to watermark theirs? |
He's been bitching about not being able to watermark in the other discussion threads, yet he still doesn't watermark. It is hypocritical to beg for it, yet not do it on teh images you already can. |
Can it be possible to argue for the rights of others to watermark without wanting to watermark your own images, I think some people have the ability to go beyond their own preferences and feelings and recognize they are not the only ones on the site.
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 10:18:55. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:22:24 AM · #205 |
BTW, one of my close friends had a photo with a watermark on it.
It is now on a book cover in Russia, with the watermark edited out. Good luck going after your money there.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:24:11 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
That, and increasing challenge entry sizes to 800x800 @ 300k. |
Opps, yep. I overlooked the big one. |
More talk. It doesn't matter what size you post or how you watermark it, it is not safe. Stop dodging the question and show me HOW doc could have watermarked the image to "protect" it from being used in the manner in which it was used, yet have it remain aesthetically pleasing.
 
The issue pops up every time someone mentions a size increase. The "current" argument started over a year ago. But you know that, don't you Barry? After all, you were the one that dug up the old thread to get crap started again.
ttp://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=841215 |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:24:49 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
BTW, one of my close friends had a photo with a watermark on it.
It is now on a book cover in Russia, with the watermark edited out. Good luck going after your money there. |
Whoa! How could that happen. It was WATERMARKED?!?
*end sarcasm* |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:28:38 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Where is the difference in you posting your own images without a watermark, but you want the site to take responsibility for your challenge entries? Your hypocritical spew is really annoying me. Either practice what you so fervently preach about, or sit down and be quiet. It is YOUR responsibility to protect YOUR images. Register your copyrights and keep them locked away if it is such a freaking issue. I am growing weary of this watermark bullsh!t and the idea that Langdon is even entertaining it. Where is the ticket to request a refund on membership? This is ridiculous. I'd rather you just keep your precious, priceless works of art to yourself. |
I started to think you are taking it at a personal level when it comes to speaking up my mind at this issue?
These pictures you pointed out, not a single one that is not registered and protected by copy rights. Any one get caught using one of them without license will sure pay dearly for that. This is the main reason I am not so in a hurry watermarking them, but rest assured next site upgrade will have them all watermarked. Growing bussines is a slow process, and bringing the site down till I watermark them, will cause more damage.
My '' Pathetic '' website gallery is done in Java, you are only left with screen capture, and even if thats done, all the pictures in there are registered, I think this is enough protection. I don't register my pictures on daily basses, thats why I would hate submitting an 800x800 that is not registered, and not watermarked, regardless of the my work quality.
I don't have to explain my self, I don't have to give a reason why I am not watermarking my website images .. I am simply stating my opinion. If Council don't want to hear about it.. then no need to open this topics and submitting polls,
Now you need to back off a little, keep to your self when it comes to my posts and kindly don't address me. Have something to say, kindly direct it to whom might be concerned, but you really need to take me off your mind, I can't speak a word without finding you chasing each and single thing I say!!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:30:21 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Can it be possible to argue for the rights of others to watermark without wanting to watermark your own images, I think some people have the ability to go beyond their own preferences and feelings and recognize they are not the only ones on the site. |
Yes, it can. I have ho issues with an unobtrusive watermark AFTER THE CHALLENGE IS OVER. What I take issue with are those that whine and bitch about not being able to place a watermark when they don't even "protect" the work they have posted that can be watermarked now. I maintain that I like Shannon's ideas of having the watermark after the fact AND having them disappear once you log in and agree not to steal images. However, that isn't good enough for some of the master artists here that make their living by participating in challenges. Its all of nothing for them. Slap a big ugly watermark that is always seen or nothing. Their stance makes me only want to go stand against them on the other side. If you are forcing me to look at it by scrolling through images on a site that I have been with for the past 4 years or so, then I am absolutely opposed. In fact, the fact that Langdon is even entertaining the idea makes me regret re-upping my membership this past Monday following the long-anticipated challenge entry size increase. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:30:29 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
More talk. It doesn't matter what size you post or how you watermark it, it is not safe. Stop dodging the question and show me HOW doc could have watermarked the image to "protect" it from being used in the manner in which it was used, yet have it remain aesthetically pleasing.
|
Um. I didn't dodge the question. You dodged the answer.
If Doc or anyone else wants to have the ability to watermark their entries POST CHALLENGE I don't understand why it has to pass your test of "remaining aesthetically pleasing". |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:31:53 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
In fact, the fact that Langdon is even entertaining the idea makes me regret re-upping my membership this past Monday following the long-anticipated challenge entry size increase. |
Yeah, you've said that more than once now.
Pretty much like everything else you've said.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:36:06 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Where is the difference in you posting your own images without a watermark, but you want the site to take responsibility for your challenge entries? Your hypocritical spew is really annoying me. Either practice what you so fervently preach about, or sit down and be quiet. It is YOUR responsibility to protect YOUR images. Register your copyrights and keep them locked away if it is such a freaking issue. I am growing weary of this watermark bullsh!t and the idea that Langdon is even entertaining it. Where is the ticket to request a refund on membership? This is ridiculous. I'd rather you just keep your precious, priceless works of art to yourself. |
These pictures you pointed out, not a single one that is not registered and protected by copy rights. Any one get caught using one of them without license will sure pay dearly for that. This is the main reason I am not so in a hurry watermarking them |
If simply registering them is good enough for your business, then why isn't that good enough for your challenge entries. You don't enter challenges everyday, do you?
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
Now you need to back off a little, keep to your self when it comes to my posts and kindly don't address me. Have something to say, kindly direct it to whom might be concerned, but you really need to take me off your mind |
As long as you post in an open discussion forum and I have something to say, that ain't gonna happen there, Ameed. I don't like your strong stance and your conflicting actions. Therefore, I will argue my points just as you do yours. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:37:32 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
In fact, the fact that Langdon is even entertaining the idea makes me regret re-upping my membership this past Monday following the long-anticipated challenge entry size increase. |
Yeah, you've said that more than once now.
Pretty much like everything else you've said. |
Everything else? Actually this and entry sizes. I also didn't fork over the $25 until the sizes were increased. You like to exaggerate, don't you phil? |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:40:50 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
More talk. It doesn't matter what size you post or how you watermark it, it is not safe. Stop dodging the question and show me HOW doc could have watermarked the image to "protect" it from being used in the manner in which it was used, yet have it remain aesthetically pleasing.
|
Um. I didn't dodge the question. You dodged the answer.
If Doc or anyone else wants to have the ability to watermark their entries POST CHALLENGE I don't understand why it has to pass your test of "remaining aesthetically pleasing". |
Because it makes for one crappy website with a thousand different watermarks marring up the images. Take a look at the images over at 1x.com. As you scroll through the galleries, notice that nothing is watermarked. Now talk about professionals and talent. That site is chocked full of both. If it isn't an issue with work that nice, why is it such an issue here? Again, delusions of grandeur.
ETA: People post there to have their work seen. There are even links to Digg, Facebook, Twitter, and Stumbleupon below each image. If you don't want it seen, by god keep it hidden and safe. Stop pretending like you're losing your life savings over someone using your image on a damn blog or website. If they use it, it is seen EVEN MORE. If you don't want it seen, just keep it to yourself. At least then you can sit around and appreciate hoe great you really are.
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 10:45:25. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:48:24 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
More talk. It doesn't matter what size you post or how you watermark it, it is not safe. Stop dodging the question and show me HOW doc could have watermarked the image to "protect" it from being used in the manner in which it was used, yet have it remain aesthetically pleasing.
|
Um. I didn't dodge the question. You dodged the answer.
If Doc or anyone else wants to have the ability to watermark their entries POST CHALLENGE I don't understand why it has to pass your test of "remaining aesthetically pleasing". |
Again, Eric the point of watermarking is not to prevent "EVERY" single image theft on earth.. It is just one way to deter someone.. I am one who would like the OPTION for a watermark for those who want that OPTION.. I understand it will not prevent theft of an image when it comes to someone who is hell bent on taking that image, just as many other people have said they also understand this... It's simply a deterrent... Now, you may not believe it's a deterrent.. great, fine, awesome.. You can believe want you want to believe.. No one is forcing you to love watermarks.. And, no one is saying the above photograph may not have been stolen with one either.. There's no way to know what might have been..
So, I like the option of allowing members to chose if their images are watermarked or not and I would like this to be implemented after the voting is over.. Kinda like the "hide nude content" option.. we can make a choice there, maybe this can fall under that same category... |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:50:47 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Kinda like the "hide nude content" option.. we can make a choice there, maybe this can fall under that same category... |
What a STELLAR idea!
Langdon, can we PLEASE have a "Hide Watermarked Images" option?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:51:53 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
No one is forcing you to love watermarks.. |
No, no one is. However, if watermarks are implemented, and I still want to participate here, you are in fact forcing me to look at crappy watermarks. If you have the option to include them, I feel that I should have the option to turn them OFF. "Kinda like the "hide nude content" option.. we can make a choice there, maybe this can fall under that same category..." |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:52:09 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Kinda like the "hide nude content" option.. we can make a choice there, maybe this can fall under that same category... |
What a STELLAR idea!
Langdon, can we PLEASE have a "Hide Watermarked Images" option? |
You beat me to it! |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:53:51 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Because it makes for one crappy website with a thousand different watermarks marring up the images. Take a look at the images over at 1x.com. As you scroll through the galleries, notice that nothing is watermarked. Now talk about professionals and talent. That site is chocked full of both. If it isn't an issue with work that nice, why is it such an issue here? Again, delusions of grandeur.
ETA: People post there to have their work seen. There are even links to Digg, Facebook, Twitter, and Stumbleupon below each image. If you don't want it seen, by god keep it hidden and safe. Stop pretending like you're losing your life savings over someone using your image on a damn blog or website. If they use it, it is seen EVEN MORE. If you don't want it seen, just keep it to yourself. At least then you can sit around and appreciate hoe great you really are. |
When you quote me and then say "you" I am taking that to mean "me". I have already said (TWICE) that I wouldn't even watermark my images. That is the problem you seem to have here. You lack any understanding of how anyone wouldn't want to use the new feature but could certainly see how others might. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:55:58 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Kinda like the "hide nude content" option.. we can make a choice there, maybe this can fall under that same category... |
What a STELLAR idea!
Langdon, can we PLEASE have a "Hide Watermarked Images" option? |
You beat me to it! |
Um yeah. Because it was in the post you already quoted. lol
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 11:02:19. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:57:33 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Because it makes for one crappy website with a thousand different watermarks marring up the images. Take a look at the images over at 1x.com. As you scroll through the galleries, notice that nothing is watermarked. Now talk about professionals and talent. That site is chocked full of both. If it isn't an issue with work that nice, why is it such an issue here? Again, delusions of grandeur.
ETA: People post there to have their work seen. There are even links to Digg, Facebook, Twitter, and Stumbleupon below each image. If you don't want it seen, by god keep it hidden and safe. Stop pretending like you're losing your life savings over someone using your image on a damn blog or website. If they use it, it is seen EVEN MORE. If you don't want it seen, just keep it to yourself. At least then you can sit around and appreciate hoe great you really are. |
When you quote me and then say "you" I am taking that to mean "me". I have already said (TWICE) that I wouldn't even watermark my images. That is the problem you seem to have here. You lack any understanding of how anyone wouldn't want to use the new feature but could certainly see how others might. |
And furthermore I DON'T CARE. Whether or not anyone, you, them, they, us, everyone, want to use the feature, I don't want to look at crappy watermarks. Does that make it more clear? |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 11:05:37 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Because it makes for one crappy website with a thousand different watermarks marring up the images. Take a look at the images over at 1x.com. As you scroll through the galleries, notice that nothing is watermarked. Now talk about professionals and talent. That site is chocked full of both. If it isn't an issue with work that nice, why is it such an issue here? Again, delusions of grandeur.
ETA: People post there to have their work seen. There are even links to Digg, Facebook, Twitter, and Stumbleupon below each image. If you don't want it seen, by god keep it hidden and safe. Stop pretending like you're losing your life savings over someone using your image on a damn blog or website. If they use it, it is seen EVEN MORE. If you don't want it seen, just keep it to yourself. At least then you can sit around and appreciate hoe great you really are. |
When you quote me and then say "you" I am taking that to mean "me". I have already said (TWICE) that I wouldn't even watermark my images. That is the problem you seem to have here. You lack any understanding of how anyone wouldn't want to use the new feature but could certainly see how others might. |
And furthermore I DON'T CARE. Whether or not anyone, you, them, they, us, everyone, want to use the feature, I don't want to look at crappy watermarks. Does that make it more clear? |
well, as long as what you want is what matters here.. LOL... I think I'm clear on it now...
edit to note: that part about "I DON'T CARE"... reminds me of something my 3 yr old would say..
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 11:07:18. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 11:05:39 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
And furthermore I DON'T CARE. Whether or not anyone, you, them, they, us, everyone, want to use the feature, I don't want to look at crappy watermarks. Does that make it more clear? |
Yep. And you could've just said that without being so insulting to those whose work doesn't meet your expectations of what you consider to be watermarkable images. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 11:06:04 AM · #224 |
Eric and Jeb you are really blowing my mind in this thread.
WE GET IT. YOURE AGAINST IT. GREAT.
Watermarks are not FORT KNOX. They will not prevent your image from being stolen if someone really wants to steal it. Doc's image could have had a watermark, and youre right, if he had put it anywhere else but right on his daughters face, it could be used. Not the point. The point is that its a DETERRENT. IT IS NOT A FAIL SAFE. IT IS NOT A CURE ALL. IT IS NOT A 100% GUARANTEE THAT THIS IMAGE WILL NEVER BE STOLEN. It is simply something to say "HEY THIS IMAGE IS NOT REALLY FAIR GAME, SO IF YOU WANT TO USE IT, CONTACT THE SITE, OR SPEND SOME TIME TRYING TO PHOTOSHOP ME OUT OF THE IMAGE"
I've not had works stolen personally. I have not lost millions of dollars due to it. But that doesn't mean that I can't see the benefit of a watermark or that I might not have work stolen in the future. Were not all Ansel Adams, no shit, but the potential for loss of funds is still there, even if I wouldn't have made money if the image wasn't stolen. Not to mention the other benefit of watermarks as promotion. I've gotten plenty of work from people posting watermarked images of mine, and the viewer googling my name (as my watermarked is a stylised text of my name). Thats work I wouldn't have gotten if I hadn't put a watermark on. WATERMARKS AS A MARKETING DEVICE?! SWOON!
Hell if I was a shade ball designer, this site would definitely be in my favorites, because we have a gallery that categorizes photos for me. Then even deeper, we have the challenges which take it even one step further and offer even more specialized themes. The back to school images...specifically Judy's (I think) of the Protractor...bam...thats my small run text book cover right there. Thanks DPC!
And to keep up with the old thought...this website is voluntary. If this is something that you feel will make the site intolerable for you, then I suggest you check out one of the other million photo contest sites and forums. No use losing sleep and getting all flustered over something you have no control over and no stake in.
In other words. Chill the eff out. Its not the end of the world. YOu gus sound like the FACEBOOK LAYOUT CHANGE people, who spaz anytime there is a change in the site.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2009 11:07:50 AM · #225 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Everything else? Actually this and entry sizes. I also didn't fork over the $25 until the sizes were increased. You like to exaggerate, don't you phil? |
Everything else in THIS THREAD Eric. This thread.
Feel better? Somehow I doubt it. |
|
