VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pak
|
Sweet as A+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pak
|
You'll **** bricks ....
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
View from outside the south building of the Metro Toronto Convention Center.... we've had a lot of rain lately.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
You guys should really start watermarking your work.. not because it actually does anything to deter theft, but if you catch someone who reposted your photo, and removed your watermark, you can actually sue them under the DMCA and get massive amounts of damages.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Yup lightroom export has the option to add it
poor quality, but this was at 8pm. just wanted to test the range of my flash. this was shot at 200mm, no crop.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Just got an x-rite color checker passport. My test shot... was pretty amazing how the colors just correct themselves with this thing. Also has the white balance grey card built in... don't have to worry about that as much anymore
|
|
|
Resident Freak Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by testing123
You guys should really start watermarking your work.. not because it actually does anything to deter theft, but if you catch someone who reposted your photo, and removed your watermark, you can actually sue them under the DMCA and get massive amounts of damages.
|
Unless people are being retarded and posting full size, full res files why worry? Pics posted here don't need to be any larger than about 1000px wide and 72dpi unless someone specifically asks for a larger size for a wallpaper. I'd love to see someone do anything substantial with a file like that other than reposting it online. Anyway if someone did take your pic and reuse it somewhere else, unless you're a retard you should have the original files/negatives and have a case regardless.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
I'm not talking about reprints. I'm talking about reposting online as their own work, stuff like that.
Watermarks are considered a copyright protection device. If someone were to remove that 'device', you can seek huge damages, far greater than if you had no watermark at all. It incurs an additional penalty for them under the DMCA. If you don't have a watermark, likely you'll just get maybe a usage payment or a takedown.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
I see no reason not to put small watermarks that dont detract from photos.
You guys realize there are foreign businesses out there that just go around the internet, grab any photos (sometimes using a script to grab a ton at once), then sell prints etc through their websites? Good luck suing anybody in China for doing that.
Also I'm guessing almost nobody here would actually end up suing someone even in the same state if they did happen to run across someone using their unwatermarked work. Damages would be minimal even if you went through the massive hassle to sue someone, unless you're a big-time pro photographer and can show there's a reasonable chance you've lost income based on that image being out there.
In the end if someone did steal and repost your photo, the best you could reasonably hope for is to get them to take it down. But if you have it watermarked with your website, you could be driving legitimate interested traffic to you. That makes the most sense...
Don't post high res files, and do put a small watermark with your website (or even flikr url)
|
|
|
Resident Freak Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by testing123
I'm not talking about reprints. I'm talking about reposting online as their own work, stuff like that.
|
Who cares? Seriously. I have a bunch of my images on my own website and on deviantart. If someone takes an image and tries to say it's theirs, oh well. If someone asks them for a print, they're screwed because they can't print from such a ****ty source. If they are asked to do some photo work based on my images they're probably screwed again because if they can shoot like me, why would they steal my images in the first place? The only time it comes into play is when they're being offered work based on your images. It sucks that it's not coming your way, but the watermark can always be removed so we're back at square one yet again.
If it makes you feel better and safer to put a watermark on your image, go for it. I just see it as a pointless endeavor and utterly ineffective at what you think it's going to do for you.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vempire
If someone takes an image and tries to say it's theirs, oh well. If someone asks them for a print, they're screwed because they can't print from such a ****ty source.
If it makes you feel better and safer to put a watermark on your image, go for it. I just see it as a pointless endeavor and utterly ineffective at what you think it's going to do for you.
|
1000 px images can give a decent quality 8x10 print - good enough, at least, that a lot of average people wouldn't mind.
but the main thing is, most people aren't going to bother removing watermarks
and
if it is reposted, it can drive traffic back to you
and all it takes is a click in lightroom to apply
|
|
|
Resident Freak Contributor
|
|
|
|
Veteran4
|
I can't help it.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Ruroni, nice work.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
last shot looks live Niko Bellic's place by Hove Beach
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edofnor
last shot looks live Niko Bellic's place by Hove Beach
|
I thought of Chicago
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strega
Ruroni, nice work.
|
Thank you
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19.
|