| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/27/2010 09:53:11 AM · #26 |
For those who want to see how a generic watermark appears on a list of images, head over to worth1000's photo section...//foto.worth1000.com
I would definitely not want to see that logo while voting, though they seem to apply it for the voting phase as well.
If the generic logo vote goes through, it'd be great if it was a www address to the photog's DPC portfolio... e.g. www.username.dpchallenge.com ?
Message edited by author 2010-01-27 09:56:09. |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 10:22:18 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Techo:
... I would definitely not want to see that logo while voting, though they seem to apply it for the voting phase as well. ... |
The DPChallenge survey says nothing about applying a watermark while voting... |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 10:58:40 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
"It is about putting a watermark where it hurts the photo the least." |
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the watermark in the first place, which is to make it impractical to reproduce the "essential" area of the picture? |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 12:29:42 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
"It is about putting a watermark where it hurts the photo the least." |
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the watermark in the first place, which is to make it impractical to reproduce the "essential" area of the picture? |
That's what I was thinking too...I understand the little signature watermark type thing on prints but that is usually easily cropped out. The purpose of a web image watermark is to detract from stealing it and claiming it as your own or reproducing it.
I learned that lesson (but haven't really done much about it) when I found one of my Chicago pictures used on a companies website. The image had been cropped just enough to remove my name and date, where as if I'd watermarked the entire image they would have most likly not used it. When I addressed the company they quickly removed it and apologized, but had it been someone printing and selling it, I would have never known.
done with my beating of the preverbal horse...leaving to go complete survey
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 02:20:23 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
"It is about putting a watermark where it hurts the photo the least." |
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the watermark in the first place, which is to make it impractical to reproduce the "essential" area of the picture? |
If you put a watermark that is so big that it is absolutely impossible to reproduce something, than it would pretty much destroy the joy of viewing them on dpchallenge too. Than we could better simply have weekly challenges and remove the photos afterwards.
And yes, I would like a watermark on my photos after a challenge. But my own watermark, where I want it. DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 02:30:50 PM · #31 |
And why not the option to upload a watermark free and a watermarked file?
Or are most photographers too lazy to put their own watermark and defend their own rights when things go wrong? Seriously. It is one push of the button in Photoshop when you make an action for it, or one hit on "T" for text and just type the damn stuff. It ain't difficult.
All this talk about dpc logos, destructive/non-destructive, want my own logo, want dpc logo, want no logo, want name, my website etc etc. That complicates the hell out of a very simple issue. But on the other hand, that is very dpc-ish.
It is your good right to put a big essence destructive watermark on your photo. But so it is my good right to put a small non destructive text on it in an unobstructive place. And if people want, dpc can give them an auto-dpc logo too with the ticking of a box. All happy. What is the friggin problem?
And don't start about the extra size on the server. It is almost nothing. Maybe 20mb per active user in a year, dpreview is at this moment offering free uploads of 200mb a month.... And the bandwith remains almost the same because only one version can be shown.
Message edited by author 2010-01-27 15:56:55.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 02:46:33 PM · #32 |
| Just a reminder that we are only referring to applying watermarks to entries, after the voting is over. You are already free to watermark your Portfolio postings to whatever extent you wish. |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 02:55:03 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just a reminder that we are only referring to applying watermarks to entries, after the voting is over. You are already free to watermark your Portfolio postings to whatever extent you wish. |
I am exclusively about the challenge entries as well.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 04:02:32 PM · #34 |
The more I read the arguments for/against watermarking the more I realise it is a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 05:36:00 PM · #35 |
Actually, it's not a bad idea Az.
So if I understand, it's like this right?
When you upload a pic, or view the pic in the portfolio/edit picture mode, there is a field for "upload watermarked version". Then the pic is stored as having two identities. One for voting and one for after voting.
I'm not sure if it "wouldn't take much extra space". If it were widely used, it would be responsible to budget HD space to DOUBLE the entire allocation for challenge images. I don't know how much space that is though.
Another issue though is integrity of representation.
How would it be possible to verify that the image shown as uploaded by the user is the same as the image that was used in the voting?
It would be possible - and very easy - to edit this or that after the voting and improve this or improve that... or perhaps even change the picture completely.
This means policing the entries. Yay. More work for the SC. And it would be specifically impossible for anyone but the SC to check/prove that illicit "post-challenge" editing was done.
Unless of course there was some simple way in the code to take the original image and the watermarked version and blend down the watermarked version at 50% opacity in difference mode or something.
If this were done, there would still be control over keeping the integrity of the original images. Most watermarks are semi-transparent anyhow, so if they were submitted at full opacity, the blend-down would work fine. It is true that it could still be abused and it might not always be obvious, but at least it would prevent significant alteration.
I do also think it is fair for DPC to use their own watermark for pictures that have been entered into photo contests on DPC. The images may not be their property, but the hosting site is. I've seen this on plenty of other hosting sites. It's all part of the game of the way the internet works. |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 09:02:56 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2010 09:12:39 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 09:17:35 PM · #38 |
| Personally I see no problem with watermarking images after they've left the home page. And I want it done automatically. If people's personal watermarks look anything like some of the borders I've seen? Yeesh! I'll go blind! |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 09:22:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image. |
Yes, but does it include branding, as a watermark would suggest? DPC doesn't claim to own the image but watermarking it with a DPC logo will make most people who visit this site think it belongs to the DPC site in some way. Something more generic that didn't include the DPC logo may be a better approach to this, such as graphical lines or some other graphic.
My 2¢ |
|
|
|
01/27/2010 11:02:51 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 01:33:40 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image. |
Yes, but does it include branding, as a watermark would suggest? DPC doesn't claim to own the image but watermarking it with a DPC logo will make most people who visit this site think it belongs to the DPC site in some way. Something more generic that didn't include the DPC logo may be a better approach to this, such as graphical lines or some other graphic.
My 2¢ |
That's why you make it an opt-in/opt-out feature. Let's assume that you can't put your own watermark; you're left with two simple choices - opt-in or opt-out. Is that so much worse than it is now? If you agree with the watermark, you opt in. If you don't, you opt out and have no watermark.
Az - Why do you want a watermark in a little corner anyway? Isn't there a (c) warning under the image/at the bottom of the page? You're asking for a specific feature for a specific purpose that seems to be extraneous and just a way to brand your images, when the very purpose of watermarking on DPC would be to protect, not to brand images. I think a lot of the people would disagree with you, since you're not just asking for a tool to protect your images, you're asking for a tool that brands your images in a certain way which is not a very protective way. So let's keep it on topic - watermarking to protect images/deter thieves, which means certain compromises have to be made between a tasteful watermark in the corner that does nothing but brand your image and a huge watermark that is absolutely impossible to remove but also impossible to ignore.
Message edited by author 2010-01-28 02:58:50. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 03:15:37 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by george917:
Az - Why do you want a watermark in a little corner anyway? |
I am not scared that people steal my stuff. Actually I don't mind, but only as long as they let my name stay on it. That is why I want (c) 2010 myname somewhere on the photo, without destroying the viewing experience. When somebody is removing my marker in Photoshop I want them to know who's stuff it is they are stealing. And when it comes in court, they cannot deny that they very conciously removed my name to make it their own.
So
- I like some form of protection
- I do not want dpc's name on it
- I do not want a destructive protection
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 03:41:40 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image. |
But not to alter it.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 04:50:37 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
DPC does not own my photo and so there should not be a dpc watermark on it. |
When yuo upload an image to DPC, you grant DPC a licence to display your image. |
But not to alter it. |
I am afraid that you are wrong. I have highlighted the relevant bits of the terms you have signed up to, which do permit DPC to alter your image:
Originally posted by DPChallenge Terms of Use:
6.2 You hereby grant DPChallenge.com a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any rights you have in the Member Information and Media, and otherwise to make use of the Member Information and Media (including publishing, disseminating, broadcasting, manipulating, reproducing, editing, translating, performing, modifying, or displaying any part of the Member Information) and/or Media alone or as part of other work in any form, media, or technology whether now new known or hereafter developed, to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site. This includes, but is certainly not limited to email "newsletters." |
Actually there are a couple of mistakes in the terms of service - but nothing that would prevent DPC from making the changes that are proposed.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 05:45:03 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DPChallenge Terms of Use:
6.2 You hereby grant DPChallenge.com a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any rights you have in the Member Information and Media, and otherwise to make use of the Member Information and Media (including publishing, disseminating, broadcasting, manipulating, reproducing, editing, translating, performing, modifying, or displaying any part of the Member Information) and/or Media alone or as part of other work in any form, media, or technology whether now new known or hereafter developed, to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site. This includes, but is certainly not limited to email "newsletters." |
Actually there are a couple of mistakes in the terms of service - but nothing that would prevent DPC from making the changes that are proposed. |
And let me bold out the most important element of this article:
to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site
Watermarking has little to do with the specific operation or marketing of the site.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2010 06:11:11 AM · #46 |
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge.
i think there should be a Watermark Design Challenge. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:07:19 AM · #47 |
| at smugmug, i have the option, via a dropbox, to put their logo, and whatever i want on my pictures. AND i can upload more than one. i wouldn't think it would be that hard to implement, and would be my personal preference. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:47:02 AM · #48 |
| I think if you are going to watermark it at all, you have to do it right after voting rather than waiting a week for it to get off the front page. People would learn quickly that if you wanted to steal those ribbon winning photos, you need to get them right away. For that matter, any registered user can browse the photos while they are in voting and copy them then, if they were bent on stealing photos from this site. IMO, as a photographer without the quality of photos that people want to steal anyway, if there is a will to steal a photo published on the web, people will find a way. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 10:58:53 AM · #49 |
| I like my watermarking seedless with a little bit of salt. |
|
|
|
01/28/2010 08:56:00 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Skip:
in the vein of keeping it simple and not splitting hairs over the semantics of the TOS...
members should have 3 options:
1) opt out, leaving their images free to be stolen
2) opt in with their own watermark
3) opt in with a default dpc watermark
registered users should have no options: they get the default dpc watermark.
i think the dpc watermark should simply convey that the image was part of a dpc challenge.
i think there should be a Watermark Design Challenge. |
If there has to be watermarking because people are getting their work stolen, or they are afraid it will be, then I agree with the 3 options idea. I personally don't like the idea of images being 'defaced' with watermarks, so would probably opt out myself (I'm not really likely to be the target anyway). Am I right in believing that a photographer's work is copyrighted to him/herself regardless of any copyright mark?
Another thing that might not be a big issue is that artists can pinch images and copy them, and I don't think a watermark would be a problem. (I've more than once seen drawings/paintings in art shows and recognized the source , so there must be quite a bit that I don't recognize.) |
|
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: 04/19/2024 07:36:47 PM EDT.
