Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,872   Posts: 1,520,117   Online: 860
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Nicole I agree with you but alas the screen print of even software that takes a screen capture will always defeat prevention

  2. #12
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Very true Tony, anyway, was just a thought/question
    Thanks everyone

  3. #13
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Why would you want to stop the practice? I think I would be rather flattered if anyone wanted to use an image of mine.
    Not to impose my will on anyone else ... but I agree. The more "press" I get, the better. Given the legal situations of the day, there aren't many magazines who will rip off an image, anyway ... and a Copyright Infringement lawsuit from me could add a little spice to the day.

    As far as I'm concerned, print out all you want. These scanned images are CRAPPY anyway - compared to the originals. At a gallery maximum of 600 x 600 pixels and 500Kb .... I wouldn't consider them as anything like serious competition for the "real thing".
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    ... and a Copyright Infringement lawsuit from me could add a little spice to the day.
    Another benefit of film as we have the negatives / slide to prove ownership! Mmmm now I wonder which photographers may have a little trouble doing that? LOL

  5. #15
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    With digital the pros mostly shoot in RAW format which is like a 'digital negative'.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Very true but many amateurs and enthusiasts such as the ones on a lot of the photography websites / user groups only keep jpegs as they only want them for screen display

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    468
    The only way to truly make sure that your work is not used without your consent is to not post at all...

    The next best step would be to damage or stamp the photo somehow... I've seen copyright with name and date digitally embossed on the photo so that the image can be seen and evaluated but would be more less useable. I've also seen little captions/signatures/names added to the bottom of the frame. If you keep it white, it blends in with a forum like this, but if it's dowloaded it stays with the work... Yes you can crop it, but it's one more step... Keep the image size small is another solution. (But having your name ON the work is always the best version...)

    Think about this for a second... You go to 1000 web sites and dowload 1 picture from each one... Every picture is one that you liked... Of those 1000 a few digitally put a name or website on the actual work... Which website do you think you'll actually go back to?

    I think it's not only a good protection, but a good marketing strategy as well to somehow label/emboss etc. your work...

    joe

    p.s. With that said, a local wedding photographer once told me that they were shooting a wedding at a house, looked over to see another wedding photo on the wall and it had PROOF stamped across the face of the print. (This was a copy blown up to 20x24 from a 5x5). Some people will do what they want no matter what you do...

  8. #18
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,637
    Images
    4
    The trouble I had, when I had a lot of my photographs on my web site, is that people would link to them in such a way that the photos appeared on the other web site, but were actually on mine, so it ate up my bandwidth. I can't remember what that's called.

    I wouldn't have minded so much, but it was done without crediting me at all. I have slowly begun putting a border around my photos with my copyright info and url. That way, a thief will at least have to go to some trouble in Photoshop to remove my information.
    juan

  9. #19
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    That is a choice digital shooters have to make. I have chosen to return to film because I have seen the light! Digital shooters should be educated (by the companies that sell the gadgets) on digital limitations and its ongoing costs to maintain a viable system - especially if this generation wishes to have treasured family photos in many years to come. Who know if lawsuits will increase in 50 years time because grandchildren can no longer see their their families history??? Just thinking out loud, sorry for the ramble.

  10. #20
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Joe and Juan, thanks for your input. Much food for thought here! Thanks

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin