Protect

[Joves]

I add none. I can defeat almost any watermark so I figure other people can too. I think the only reason to use a watermark is for advertisement purposes.

I agree.

Anything on a computer screen can be stolen like THAT.

Pushing the "Prnt Scrn" button on an un-watermarked isn't exactly "jumping through hoops", and almost any watermark can be defeated. If any particular image of yours good enough to be worrisome FOR YOU, don't put it on the internet in a size that worries you (whether that's, not enough to print an 8x10, or only a 400x400 preview).

This is the best method there is to keep them from stealing. They can try and enlarge the image but, it degrades greatly as you enlarge it.

 

[William Petruzzo]

Is it normal for forum threads to be resurrected like this?

 

[Jon, The Elder]

Is it normal for forum threads to be resurrected like this?

Not so much resurrected as just another question being repeated time and again.

Stick around for a year or so and nearly every question will be repeated, with the same answers being used in slightly different order........

 

[051fdrof]

I also embed copyright info into the file. People are alarmingly stupid sometimes, so I can totally see a situation where an image gets stolen and they don't realize that info is in there... it goes to court... SO BUSTED!...

But only if your pics are actually registered with the copyright office, correct?

 

[manaheim]

But only if your pics are actually registered with the copyright office, correct?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but no... my understanding is that your work is owned and copyrighted by you unless you tell people otherwise.

You do have to register TRADEMARKS, but that's a different thing.

Again... I AM NOT A LAWYER.

 

[manaheim]

Is it normal for forum threads to be resurrected like this?

Yeah, happens constantly. Partly because people don't search first and partly because the mods don't let us sticky them because they are opinion-based.

 

[051fdrof]

I just did a quick search. Check out post #15 in this thread.

3. You would have to register the images with the library of congress before you went any further. This is easily done. The images do not have to be registered before the violation but must be before you can take legal action

Maybe the registration is only necessary if you're seeking damages?

 

[manaheim]

From a quick search:

Copyright

Under current U.S. law, copyright protection arises automatically when an "original work of authorship" is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". A work is "original" in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author. For example, a photograph of Yosemite's Bridalveil Fall is original so long as it was created by the photographer, even if it's the zillionth photo to be taken of that scene. Only minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement, no artistic merit or beauty is required.

Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright. Furthermore, buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work.

Taken from http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html which has a ton of other info.

granted, random website, be warned... it may be inaccurate, but certainly represents what I understand to be true.

 

[051fdrof]

I guess the question is whether or not our pictures need to be registered in order to provide us with a basis upon which to pursue legal action. I'm certainly not a lawyer either, but it seems as though there is a limit to the action we can take against infringement, if our pictures aren't registered.

Maybe someone has had a personal experience that can clear this up?

 

[Blawhi]

Try to defeat a watermark made with this program

 

[saltface]

I guess the question is whether or not our pictures need to be registered in order to provide us with a basis upon which to pursue legal action. I'm certainly not a lawyer either, but it seems as though there is a limit to the action we can take against infringement, if our pictures aren't registered.

Maybe someone has had a personal experience that can clear this up?

As far as I understand it, when you hit the shutter button, you own that image. I imagine you can at least force the offender to take it down/back.
I don't know about suing them.

Try to defeat a watermark made with this program

I don't see how this is any different than Photoshop...

 

[Joves]

From a quick search:

Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright. Furthermore, buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work.

Taken from http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html which has a ton of other info.

granted, random website, be warned... it may be inaccurate, but certainly represents what I understand to be true.

I believe the art or building is if it is used for commercial or, profit purposes. As far as you taking a picture and merely displaying it, it would fall under general use and, you cant copy write those pictures.

 

[manaheim]

^^ yes, actually, you can.

If you took the picture, the image is copyrighted by you.

There are other laws on usage of those images (such as if you take a picture of a person and try to sell the picture without their release), but the image is STILL copyrighted by the photographer.

Look, I'm not atty. but the laws are pretty consistently represented this way. Let's not speculate and give misinformation, folks. Do some research, please.

 

[morganleigh]

As a grad student I have to take a certain number of ethics classes. I went to one on copyrights a couple of years ago

if you create something, you have the copyright. The example used in the class was that if you doodle on a piece of paper, you have the copyright to that image.

registering a copyright just makes it easier to protect, but it's not required. imbedding the copyright info sounds like a good way to get the protection without the hassle.

 

[inetwiz]

Hey just out of curiosity does anyone use watermarks or other ways of protecting their photos online? I've just started to share my stuff online and they have a transparent text layer on them but that's easily photoshoped out. I haven't shared ful res images either... what do most people do in these situations?

I use Batch Watermarker to protect all my photos. You can apply text or image watermarks with a click of the mouse. The nice thing about this app is that it allows you to watermark all your photos in a folder in one go.