I could NOT disagree with you more! Knock it off with the "copyright must be implied by a watermark" nonsense! Too many people use that to justify blatant theft in their own minds. The moment that a photograph is taken it becomes the sole property of the photographer, (or the person/company that has hired that photographer). There is no ambiguity in this. The fact that something is easy to steal, as in this case, does not in any way, manner, shape or form take away from the fact that the photo was stolen.kdupreez wrote: BUT, it has no clear indication that the photo is copyright.. its labeled as "sample photos".. but now watermark.
I know your web site says copyright etc.. but the actual photo is labeled as a sample and in this case it was used to highlight a dive site location, so nobody is gaining any financial benefit from the perceived "copyright infringement"
just sayin - your photo is publicly available as a "sample" picture and without any copyright implied on the image itself, its a tough call.
there are ad banners on the website. making the website more attractive garners more pageviews. pageviews and possible banner clicks result in revenue for the site owner.kdupreez wrote:so nobody is gaining any financial benefit from the perceived "copyright infringement"
EXIF metadata not a tamper proof system either, its collection of text tags that are in the header of the image file with the intent to help image companies like Getty, Reuters, etc. identify things like aperture, shutter speed, ISO, source camera, photographer, etc. But can be easily stripped (as easy as cropping). Also, Not all image types support EXIF and lots of apps will strip EXIF when you crop or re-save a pic.. lots of online image galleries also strip EXIF when you upload the pic.. (which is actually a very good thing for privacy reasons!)boydski wrote:All of my photos (and hopefully Calvins) have a copyright notice embedded in them by the camera as they are taken
Both Calvin and I are heavily involved in ventures commonly described as "Web-Based Magazines". Placing a visible watermark across the face of a photo would render it FAR less attractive to a reader of the magazine. In that case we would be protecting our photos from thieves, but making our publications less attractive to our legitimate readers. Our goal is to make our readers happy, and increase their number. Unfortunately, just like any other type of business, that leaves us open to those that do not have our best interests in mind.airsix wrote: Why not watermark everything as a precaution?
there's no such thing as a tamper-proof system for online imagery. if it's posted on a public website, it can be repurposed, often with no way to trace it back to the original photographer or artist, other than someone recognizing and reporting it.kdupreez wrote:EXIF metadata not a tamper proof system either
http://www.divebuddy.com/terms.aspxThey do have a complaint proceedure:8. Content/Activity Prohibited.
8.8 constitutes or promotes an illegal or unauthorized copy of another person's copyrighted work, such as providing pirated computer programs or links to them, providing information to circumvent manufacturer-installed copy-protect devices, or providing pirated music or links to pirated music files;
8.16 violates the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark rights, contract rights or any other rights of any person.
9. Protecting Copyrights and Other Intellectual Property. DiveBuddy respects the intellectual property of others, and requires that our users do the same. You may not upload, embed, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any material that infringes any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights of any person or entity. DiveBuddy has the right to terminate the Membership of infringers.
If you believe your work has been copied and posted on or through the DiveBuddy Services in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please send DiveBuddy a notification of claimed infringement with all of the following information: (a) identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works; (b) identification of the claimed infringing material and information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material on the DiveBuddy Services (providing the URL(s) of the claimed infringing material satisfies this requirement); (c) information reasonably sufficient to permit us to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an email address; (d) a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; (e) a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notification is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or a uthorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf; and (f) your physical or electronic signature. DiveBuddy for notification of claimed infringement can be reached as follows: Davis Companies, Inc., P.O. Box 150, Dodge, TX 77334, Attn: Copyright; or by email: copyright@divebuddy.com
Sounder wrote:Under normal circumstances, I would never tell another man how to shave his balls... but this device should not be kept secret.
Those are very good points, John. Thank you for that follow-up.John Rawlings wrote:Both Calvin and I are heavily involved in ventures commonly described as "Web-Based Magazines". Placing a visible watermark across the face of a photo would render it FAR less attractive to a reader of the magazine. In that case we would be protecting our photos from thieves, but making our publications less attractive to our legitimate readers. Our goal is to make our readers happy, and increase their number. Unfortunately, just like any other type of business, that leaves us open to those that do not have our best interests in mind.
(thank you)read the whole interview here:You make so much of your work available for free, using a Creative Commons license. Why do it this way?
It just feels right to me for some reason. I’m not depending on this work to put food on my table right now. I have the job for that. By licensing things this way my work gets more exposure I think. I also sell a lot of photos without doing any marketing at all just because they are seen on the web. I largely don’t worry about personal or unauthorized use that is not likely to generate meaningful money at this point anyways.
I like sharing. I like the idea that my work can be more accessible and meaningful for other people with these licenses as well.
What has been the greatest or most interesting return on that generosity?
Definitely the people. I’ve met such amazing people through my photography. Other artists, other photographers, models, subjects. Many of these people have found my work because it’s popular and I think CC licensing helps with popularity, as does large-sized images, no watermarks, etc. So people have found me that I’ve been fortunate to meet. People that have been very generous with me. People that work on the tools side of digital imaging. People that are doing cutting edge things with art today.
In other words, he would still not have liked that guy plagiarizing his work on a commercial site with ads!I do make some money though. The license I use for the vast majority of my image is Creative Commons Non-Commercial. Meaning that anyone can use them for personal or non-profit use, but if a company wants to use one they would need to contact me and buy it. So I’m only partially giving them away.
not disputing you on that one, buddy.Tangfish wrote:In other words, he would still not have liked that guy plagiarizing his work on a commercial site with ads!
