| Author |
Message |
sercas72
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 14:45 - Edited by: sercas72
Reply
I am sharing again my photographies.
Excuse me for the watermark and frames, but it is the only solution that I see to prevent the theft of images.
Thank you for commentaries.
Sergio
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 16:51
Reply
Well. Im glad you're back.
You've posted this mail in the right forum ;-)
The Good (your pictures), The Bad (the thieves) and The Ugly (watermarks)
|
KevinHall
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 17:07
Reply
This info does no good outside of the US so it may not be very useful here, but..........
If your image is infringed upon in the US and they remove the watermark the DMCA allows for penalties and fees to be awarded even if you did not register your image at the copyright office. (In the US the creator of an image has copyright from the moment of creation but often cannot recover more than the cost to file the claim without having registered the image.) With the DMCA you can go after the culprit as the awards are substantially more than to file the claim.
Here is a good read at NatureScapes.net from Carolyn Wright, an attorney specializing in copyright and law for photographers. She is also a photographer.
http://www.naturescapes.net/092007/cw0907.htm
http://www.photoattorney.com/
|
www.imagografie.ch
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 19:33
Reply
i'm glad you found a solution to stay with us!
i don't care about the watermark..
greetz
Bunny
|
kyrsun
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 19:56
Reply
glad to see your pics again too.
your watermarks are ... beautiful :D !
it's true, they give an original style to your pics :)
|
pansa
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 21:50 - Edited by: pansa
Reply
@ Sercas
It's your choice but I find it ugly. Sorry for that. Why post ugly pxs to prevent people from reusing pxs? It shows that the pxs are now too ugly to steal. Is that what we want??????
|
|
sercas72
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Sep 07 23:35 - Edited by: sercas72
Reply
It does not matter pansa, I estimate very much your sincere opinion and finally someone says to me that my photos are ugly and I like it, since I think that my photos some are good others really not.
Every day I need to change my type of work to be able to do new things, often there are obtained good results and others not.
All the critiques to improve my work are welcome.
Best regards and thanks for your opinion pansa, bunny, martin, kevin and kyrsun.
|
|
KevinHall
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 00:20
Reply
I think your work is great, I'm not wild about the watermark but I understand it's purpose. Unfortunantly no matter what you do there is always someone that thinks they are clever -and they will find a way around your watermark.
Because of this I personally place the ©Kevin M. Hall in the image in a subtle way that is visible but doesn't detract from the image. I also embed metadata, copyright, and contact info into the image file. These are all measures that can be defeated but then when I catch them they are unable to plea ignorance and innocence. By deliberately removing a watermark and info they willfully hang themselves with their own rope.
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 09:04
Reply
Sergio, in the more graphical ( and surrealistic ) pictures the haircross fits nicely into the picture, IMHO, but generally speaking it is a da**** shame it is necessary to do so.
 by sercas72
|
Corneel Timmermans
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 12:42
Reply
Sercas72,
I think you're watermark could be worse.. it's less obvious and more originasl than most of them. I like the idea.
Corneel
PS Any visible watermark will create a disturbance in the photo..
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 13:23
Reply
To be honest, I don't like these marks. It is too visible everywhere on the pictures. More, a lot of your subjects seem to be now "targeted" , as for instance :
Really I would prefer a signature or even a mark as Jose Goulao's (but I don't like it neither).
Maybe I will be rude, but the debates about thief of pictures is, on my mind, too noisy.
When we put our pictures on Internet, with ou without marks or signature on them, we know the risk (exept the new ones coming on Internet, but you are not, me neither).
I sometimes think that clamed to have been stolen is just a kind of indirect self-promotion.
But maybe I see the devil where he is not.
All these things have nothing to do with my opinion about the pictures by themselves, your and Jose's. 398333 is a beautiful one.
|
|
pansa
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 14:07
Reply
Needless to say that I did not dislike your pxs. On the contrary, they are very good. That's why I don't understand that you mutilate them with that watermark.
|
giz
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 14:07
Reply
I have to agree with Aline, the watermark is too prominent on the picture imo and it spoils the image. I ask myself what I would hate more : a watermark on my pictures or the chance that one of my pictures would be stolen. I think it will be the watermark.
|
Dieuwertje
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Sep 07 17:31
Reply
My oppinion is that it is very honorable to me whem someone will use my pict, he/she must like it than very well, and I know it's also the risk when I put my pict on internet.
At the pict of Sercas it fits to the topic, but it can be very disturbing when it's an poetic pict or something like that, so no watermark for me
|
Oscar_
Moderator
|
# Posted: 8 Sep 07 12:48
Reply
I totally agree with giz, I also think that the watermark is worse than the change that the pic can be stolen. But that is my opinion.
I personally hate the watermarks. But Sercas I like your pictures but with those watermarks there is no beauty at all. Sorry !!!
|
Xilintz
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Sep 07 15:59
Reply
Sorry, I disagree with you,Oscar (and giz) : I think that sercas 72 chose a simple and sober watermark, seem to be what your eye see when you take a photo.
So, it does not bother me.
@ sercas 72 It's a pleasure to see your pics again. You, probably, tried to find something discreet and, imo, you success even if it is visible. But it is the function of a watermark...
Cordialement
|
ortho158
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Sep 07 17:04
Reply
I am rather against too visible watermarks, and I prefer a signature in a corner (like Aline does, e.g.). In your case, it is not too annoying, except in cases like this one, where it destroys completely the image.
|
|
sercas72
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Sep 07 18:11 - Edited by: sercas72
Reply
Thanks at all for your opinions, I estimate the point of view of all you and as some of you I also hate these watermarks in the images but I do not have another option for the present.
I like much that a person like Xilintz has the sensibility of estimating the design of watermark, I did it with this purpose.
Best regards sergio.
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 4