Stealing photos from Flickr...

[Sam6644]

if u dont post it online how will people like the photos and get u known later on?.. isnt there copyright sign on the photos so if they do steal it u can do somtng aoubt it

good luck finding out someone stole your photos.

 

[Live_free]

if u dont post it online how will people like the photos and get u known later on?.. isnt there copyright sign on the photos so if they do steal it u can do somtng aoubt it

good luck finding out someone stole your photos.

Also I doubt that someone who has constantly demonstrated improper sentence structure and spelling will get "big". Unless english isn't you first language. Also it isn't that big of a deal. People aren't generally going to go around steal photos take the watermark off and then try to get singed with it.

 

[Sam6644]

when you shoot for a publication your photos don't belong to you anyway, so take flickr as an opportunity to get used to other people owning your work.

I own the rights to like 6 of the last 2000 or so photos I've taken, hahaha.

 

[o hey tyler]

Embed images with Flash.

Also, don't you technically "own" the copyrights to any photo you've taken? Seeing as how it's your camera, your time, you are the one pressing the shutter release, etc.

 

[Sam6644]

Nope.

Generally no. Maybe if you're Annie leibowitz or work on spec.

You get paid for the rights to your work, not your labor.

 

[o hey tyler]

I get paid for labor...? If you take photos that you aren't commissioned for, you own the rights. If you've taken 2000 images, and you got paid for 1,994 of them, you'd be doing pretty good for yourself.

 

[KmH]

when you shoot for a publication your photos don't belong to you anyway....

It's not an absolute. It depends on your contract (work-for-hire) and/or if you are an employee of the publication.

 

[Josh66]

Just because your photos can be stolen (they can), doesn't necessarily mean they will be stolen...

But, you need to be aware that it is a risk.

There are things you can do to make it less likely to happen (like only uploading low-res or watermarked photos), but nothing can prevent it.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Nope.

Generally no. Maybe if you're Annie leibowitz or work on spec.

You get paid for the rights to your work, not your labor.

What the raw deal publication do you work for that takes the rights to your work? That's pretty crappy.

 

[Overread]

Make sure you limit the size of image you post on the net - you don't need anything much bigger than 600 pixels on the longest side for an internet proofing dispaly so don't upload anything larger than that. That will significantly limit the possible uses of the image to people should they use them without your permission

Another move - aside from password protection - is to also limit the time that the images are uploaded to the website. Chances are after the first few orders (or even just after the first order) most people won't revisit your site to make new orders for a very long time. So don't waste the space and keep them up - take them down. It also helps since having a company policy limiting the uploaded time (and telling your clients this) will help to push them along to making a purchase choice.

Of course keep the images archived in your archives (along with backups and such as well) so that they are present for reordering at a later date. I would also say from a customer relations point that if you do decide that you have to release images from your own storage setup (lets say you have been running for a good number of years and you have decided to reduce your archive amount) then contact the people you shot for and offer the images to them - no point letting them go to nothing if you are going to delete them -- for contacts facebook is a good thing to get hold of since many people use it today and its one thing that is likley to stay constant (unlike telephone numbers, emails and addresses).

 

[clbd39]

Embed images with Flash.

Also, don't you technically "own" the copyrights to any photo you've taken? Seeing as how it's your camera, your time, you are the one pressing the shutter release, etc.

if you even do that all you have to do is look in temporary internet files and view last accessed files and there the pictures are

 

[manicmike]

My suggestion, though probably not of great value, use low res images and a huge watermark across the middle. If you're just uploading for clients to see you're work, I'd think that would be a good way to go. No one wants to frame a crappy picture with a huge logo.

 

[creisinger]

Haven't read all the answers but first of all it looks awfully amateurish to put session shots on Flickr.

These days you can get a web site with unlimited storage for $5 a month. You don't have to be a whiz to understand uploading to a folder that you protect either with an htaccess file or even a password protection through the webhosting control panel.

That way at least you eliminate the chance of the images being "stolen" by 99.9%. As long as the site is not being indexed by search engines it's your safest bet.

If you want it to look professional but don't want to put so much developing behind it you can use smugmug. They offer several packages especially for photographers that have to present their session shots to their clients. Prints can be ordered right there as well.

Actually there are plenty of such services out there but, again, just don't put sensitive stuff on Flickr, in fact as a serious photographer don't put anything on Flickr. I've had mine and other photographers images stolen just to see them 10 or 20 times again on Flickr in other peoples portfolios. Lame.

 

[Sam6644]

Nope.

Generally no. Maybe if you're Annie leibowitz or work on spec.

You get paid for the rights to your work, not your labor.

What the raw deal publication do you work for that takes the rights to your work? That's pretty crappy.

Any one that keeps you on payroll and you work on assignment for.

 

[creisinger]

And for anyone who's interested about copyright and what you can do about it - check out my articles in my blog here.