| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2010 05:28:47 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I want some popcorn for this thread! Who has the icon! |
Here you go...  |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 06:38:44 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
What?
So all of a sudden people are concerned with Langdon's having a life????
Where was all this concern when the loudmouths decided that Langdon didn't give two whits for the security of anyone's images as long as he had use of them to further his greedy, money-grubbing interests as site owner?
 keyz gets cute/sarcastic pointing out a pretty obvious and serious flaw and you jump him????
Where's the equity in that? This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time, and nobody's said word omne......oh, my mistake, I've been roundly chastised for trying to point out the obvious that people willingly and knowingly uploaded their images. Then, of course, it became Langdon's problem when they got pissed off.
Somebody please explain to me how Langdon should feel anything but disgusted since no matter what he does, somebody bitches.
There's some serious motivation for doing hard work, huh!
Langdon.....kudos to ya......you continue to look forward, make changes, and progress for the betterment of the site DESPITE all that. |
I don't know Langdon at all but I think the man can take a little negative feedback, he is running a business here and if you can't take negative feedback once in a while you shouldn't be in business. He is, after all, the originator of this site and has seen thousands of customers come and go. He has probably the thickest skin here. Who are you Jeb? His personal assistant out to nail everyone who mentions one tiny iota of negativeness? You're sounding like you're looking for a job as a vice president of DPC or something. Calm down dude, sheesh. Then you attack Juliet.... I'll let her reply to your post.
ETA, I see Juliet has replied. Well said Juliet. |
And I didn't attack anyone....I was just amazed at the selectiveness when it comes to what y'all will tolerate from whom.
keyz just pointed out an oversight.
Howzis?
I don't give a rat's ass what any of you do.
But don't speak for me, and leave my images out of your plans and demands.
You obviously don't have a clue as to the amount of work that it takes to set up and maintain a websire, and/or don't care, so go ahead and do what you want.
You say I'm looking for a job at DPC???? Surely you jest? Why would I willingly offer myself up as a target for you ungrateful lot?
I'll tell you what......you just carry on with whatever......I'll tell you this, though. Y'all do anything that infringes on my images as uploaded, and I'll create havoc like you wouldn't believe. They're uploaded as *I* edited them and presented them. Anyone alters them, and I'll use the site's own copyright policy to go after them. Got it?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 06:52:11 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Y'all do anything that infringes on my images as uploaded, and I'll create havoc like you wouldn't believe. They're uploaded as *I* edited them and presented them. Anyone alters them, and I'll use the site's own copyright policy to go after them. Got it? |
why do i get the feeling you have one of those bumper stickers that says "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers"?
seems like whenever there is someone pissing people off in a thread, it's usually you. dont you ever get tired of the angst you create? sounds like someone needs a warm glass of milk and a nap |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 07:10:11 PM · #154 |
| What world do you live in Jeb? |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 07:59:44 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
What world do you live in Jeb? |
The world where people are accountable and responsible for their own actions. The one where nobody expects a free ride and for others to clean up their mess.
You'll take this sh*t from Ivo when he gets all abusive and belligerent making demands, but when I remind you that you're all responsible for what you do, you get all pissy.
If you don't want to hear any more, then quit making obnoxious remarks in return.
This whole issue got started because people didn't want to accept the consequences of growth and change.
Nobody wants to incur the expense and aggravation of going after these people who are stealing YOUR images, *NOT* DPC's images.
It says at the bottom of *EVERY* page:
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Well, guess what? That means that YOU get to go after them if you want compensation and/or justice; it is NOT the site's responsibility.
The sooner that gets through all your thick skulls, the sooner you SHOULD get a grasp that *anything* that Langdon and DPC do over and above that caveat at the bottom of the page is strictly a benevolent and considerate effort.
But apparently none of you have ever had to deal in the real world where life isn't always fair and sometimes you have to pick your battles where they make sense.
So.....you figure out that you don't have time, inclination, or the money to pursue a copyright lawsuit? Gee, maybe you should have thought about that before you uploaded an image to the 'Net if you thought it was that valuable. So live with it, or do something about it, but don't expect others to look out for your interests.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:16:09 PM · #156 |
| Sir, you have totally and utterly lost the plot. You need to take meds or something. I have never ever said ONE word against the watermarks, against DPC, SC or Landon, EVER. You just like spouting off at the mouth. making shit up as you go along, why dont you shut your mouth and read with your EYES instead. Then maybe you would have a better grasp of what was actually going on and not look so stupid when you write out your replies. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:35:44 PM · #157 |
| OK -- enough personal sniping (by everyone); get back to discussing the issues of watermarking or don't post. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:45:41 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK -- enough personal sniping (by everyone); get back to discussing the issues of watermarking or don't post. |
Okay.
Why *IS* there an issue since it's upon the owner of any image to protect it from any real or imagined theft?
Did the copyright office shut down or something?
Message edited by author 2010-02-13 20:46:19.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:47:24 PM · #159 |
I like that the watermarks are an opt-in feature, not a default. If it were possible to rotate them 90 degrees, it would provide more placement options. I also think that placing them such that they "protect" the images generally makes the image significantly less attractive, so I doubt I will enjoy viewing those images much.
Thanks to  Langdon for providing the option to do this for those who want it on their images, with no auto-defaults or retroactive placements. And, sir, I will re-re-re-re-reiterate my request for a User Block feature, for which I will gladly pay extra, and will happily accept any glitchy forum thread or image comment consequences. This thread became the perfect example of why such a feature would be so welcome. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 09:12:14 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by togtog:
I'm not going to make this a long post, nor demand anything.
I think I understand Ivo's feelings on the matter, as one of ethics. If you saw an elderly person fall, you would try to help them up. It would not matter if they were paying you, nor if they expected you to be there, nor if they forgot to take their medications or should not have been out walking.
You would reach out and help them up.
DPC is in a position to watermark every entry regardless of account age or membership status. As others have pointed out watermarks while possibly ruining a photo can protect them from theft. So it seems to me also that the ethical thing to do by DPC would be to provide maximum protection, to every photographer.
That said, as I understand it, every image which is watermarked creates a duplicate which must be stored which as cheap as storage is is still a cost to DPC to provide this feature. There were also the man hours to implement the feature. To write the polls, tally the results. Also to listen to members input and provide feed back to them about this. Last but not least the time in hunting down bugs and getting things just right. Some of that is still pending.
So I think Ivo became fixated on seeing an old lady fall and being charged for help, and maybe not the costs of running this site and the time to implement new features. I don't really know but I felt I needed to say something on it.
Good day to all of you. |
A watermark does NOT protect an image from Theft.
A watermark only ALTERS an image into an image nobody wants. The good image no longer is visible.
In response to your analogy. The old lady didn't fall as much as she's wearing a blue dress and wants to be in a red one. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 09:13:09 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I want some popcorn for this thread! Who has the icon! |
Here you go... |
Awesome! Thanks. You should watermark that image! |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 10:18:20 PM · #162 |
I think I have to side with Jeb on many of his points. Let me preface this by saying what I said in my original post, and that is that I am glad that this site is going to off this because there are allot of people here concerned with image theft.
My photos aren't at the level that image theft is a concern for me, but even if they were, I wouldn't watermark them. I tried out the feature here, and moved it around on my photos. I came to the conclusion that it was so bad, that I would rather have them stolen, than defaced the way that the watermark does. I mean, I'm not going to kick my doors in and key my own car because automotive theft is a problem. So that being said, I take photographs for two reasons. 1) because of the enjoyment I get out of the hobby and 2) because of the enjoyment I get out of people viewing them.
Now, a very wise fictional homicidal maniac once said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free..." and I agree with that. So for many on here who make a living at photography, I understand why watermarking your images may be an issue, but for me, its not. That's why I'm really glad the option was added and that we have the ability to turn it off and on. For those crying about it being a member-only gig, well, its 7 cents a day... Really... If you are that concerned over image theft, here's my advice... Don't upload a single image to the internet, because if people really want to steal them, they will. NOW... Where's my popcorn??? :) |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 11:18:18 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A watermark does NOT protect an image from Theft. |
WRONG! It will likely deter over 90% of image theft if not more
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A watermark only ALTERS an image into an image nobody wants. The good image no longer is visible. |
Again WRONG! this is the opinion of a small minority. It should always be up to the photographer to decide how their image is viewed, if you do not like watermarks then don't look at those images. If you are actually correct then your own photos will get more views because you do not have the watermark turned on, be happy about it!
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 11:42:46 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A watermark does NOT protect an image from Theft. |
WRONG! It will likely deter over 90% of image theft if not more |
How so? The image worth stealing is no longer available. I can prevent the Mona Lisa from being stolen by painting a large stripe across it. It's no longer what it was.
Let me see if I can help you understand...
Image A is beautiful shot of a Icelandic sunset over the ocean.. By watermarking it, Image A is no longer available on the site. Now there is a beautiful shot of an Icelandic sunset over the ocean with a big blotch of text on top of it. That's Image B. No one will steal Image B for sure, because of that blotch of text. BUT the blotch is not protecting Image A at all because Image A is nowhere to be found. Pretty much common sense there.
So what is protecting Image A from being stolen? Not the blotch on Image B! It's the fact that Image A is essentially gone. Hidden from view.
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A watermark only ALTERS an image into an image nobody wants. The good image no longer is visible. |
Again WRONG! this is the opinion of a small minority. It should always be up to the photographer to decide how their image is viewed, if you do not like watermarks then don't look at those images. If you are actually correct then your own photos will get more views because you do not have the watermark turned on, be happy about it! |
Correction! It is you that are WRONG (in big friendly letters). I'm not against watermarking at all. I'm just pointing out the facts about it and what is does/does not do. This was in response to the whine that it should be provided for all like it's truly some form of protection.
It's actually graffiti or vandalism of an image.
So to make sure you understand... I like that they offer it. I think it's wonderful if someone wishes to use it. Likewise, it should be a members only feature since it adds no additional protection. If Langdon wants to extend this to non-members, then it's SOLELY his right and choice and in NO WAY an obligation as others have whined.
That's it. That was what I was responding to and was RIGHT about. :) |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 12:32:43 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I want some popcorn for this thread! Who has the icon! |
Sorry. No can do. The popcorn is only meant for the spectators on the outside of the cage :P |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 12:39:13 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
...
It's actually graffiti or vandalism of an image.
... |
It is a 'mask' (GIF) over the original image, not applied to the original file or embedded
The way it is currently implemented here: if it is applied, it is applied by the photographer/owner themself
...
PS
Hope DPC appeals to you again one day Ivo |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 04:54:08 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
What world do you live in Jeb? |
The world where people are accountable and responsible for their own actions. The one where nobody expects a free ride and for others to clean up their mess. |
In the real world, unfortunately, people try to run away from any personal responsibility and expect free rides from others to clean up their mess. I see this more and more. Getting really tiresome.
That is why there is this mess here, governments busy with pointless wars and huge debt situations from private to federal level.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2010 05:10:52 AM · #168 |
Wow - I believe I am mostly aligned with Jeb's position on this issue (as I think I posted awhile back). I am just surprised that my post came off as less abrasive than his - I think I tried a lot harder. It's because nobody takes me seriously, isn't it? Ah well, whattayagonnado.
 |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 07:49:30 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by macrothing:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
...
It's actually graffiti or vandalism of an image.
... |
It is a 'mask' (GIF) over the original image, not applied to the original file or embedded
The way it is currently implemented here: if it is applied, it is applied by the photographer/owner themself
...
PS
Hope DPC appeals to you again one day Ivo |
Correct. Glad you agree with me. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 07:50:10 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
What world do you live in Jeb? |
The world where people are accountable and responsible for their own actions. The one where nobody expects a free ride and for others to clean up their mess. |
In the real world, unfortunately, people try to run away from any personal responsibility and expect free rides from others to clean up their mess. I see this more and more. Getting really tiresome.
That is why there is this mess here, governments busy with pointless wars and huge debt situations from private to federal level. |
Then the BEST solution is to take your photos and neve publish them anywhere. That's protection! |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 07:56:25 AM · #171 |
| There is an alternative, I have read in the past that if you close your account and specifically ask that they take down all your photographs, including challenges, they will do that. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read that somewhere on here. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 08:06:46 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A watermark does NOT protect an image from Theft. |
Originally posted by basssman7:
WRONG! It will likely deter over 90% of image theft if not more |
Really????
On what basis do you put forth this statistic?
I'm sure you have something to back this up.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2010 08:12:28 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Then the BEST solution is to take your photos and neve publish them anywhere. That's protection! |
There's always that totally bizarre & crazy idea that you could register them with the copyright office.
Just sayin'.....
|
|
|
|
02/14/2010 08:13:30 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
There is an alternative, I have read in the past that if you close your account and specifically ask that they take down all your photographs, including challenges, they will do that. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read that somewhere on here. |
That is not quite right. Challenge images remain in the archive to preserve challenge integrity. Only in very unusual situations (error in model release, argument over work-for-hire, or claim of copyright over the subject) would we even consider removing a challenge image. This really almost never happens.
Members who have portfolios attached to their account will sometimes clear them before asking for account cancellation; however, it's not required. SC would not get involved in removing portfolio images since they can't be viewed by anyone else anyway when an account has been cancelled. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 08:33:58 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
There is an alternative, I have read in the past that if you close your account and specifically ask that they take down all your photographs, including challenges, they will do that. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read that somewhere on here. |
Originally posted by L2:
That is not quite right. Challenge images remain in the archive to preserve challenge integrity. Only in very unusual situations (error in model release, argument over work-for-hire, or claim of copyright over the subject) would we even consider removing a challenge image. |
What circumstances would be required to remove all of a photoghrapher's images?
Where is it stated in DPC's ToS, or whatever, that the images remain in the archives in perpetuity?
Just wondering on what basis the site could refuse the owner of images direct request to remove them from the site.
|
|
