When to use the term "photography"

[c.cloudwalker]

Dandaluz
Photography

Name
Address
Phone



or




Dandaluz Photography

Name
Address
Phone




What's the difference?

 

[AprilEye]

:er: Ok so after reading this, I decided to remove my name from my pictures. It does seem silly if you are an amateur and not getting paid. And it is true that if someone really wanted to steal the photos, they could just remove the watermark themselves. So... for me its bye-bye watermark. (i didnt really think it fit my photos at this level anyway). Good advice!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I'm an amateur.

You are? Someone making a paycheck from photography is not an amateur :lmao:

 

[Robin Usagani]

Erose, doesnt matter what you do.. you got the best watermark EVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA PERIOD... END OF DISCUSSION

I'm an amateur. I have a watermark *and* "photography"

I don't care who likes it and who doesn't.

The end.

:lmao:

 

[pgriz]

I dunno. Putting a fancy watermark on a photo posted in the beginner's section seems a little pretentious. I can see it on websites where you can view a large version of a picture - then you want to make sure people don't rip off your work. But at the resolutions that most pictures are posted, and with the pictorial quality that many show, it's probably not an issue. Somehow, I don't think prospective customers are perusing TPF Beginner's Forum to find the photographers they want to use.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Thanks for all the replies. Good stuff!

Danny

 

[kundalini]

Ah, the protocol question...I'm always confused by questions of protocol...like, "Which fork is the oyster fork, which one the salad fork, and what do I do with the individual forks after I am done with them??" And, on the servingwear--how does one tell the difference between the cold meat fork and the salad serving fork?

That why we all eat fast food today, one plastic fork.

The restaurants I frequent use sporks. :blushing:

 

[Village Idiot]

The only place I know that still uses provides sporks is Taco Bell. And while I was admittedly a big fan of the idea of the spork, I'm not so much of a fan of actually using one.

The fork function works decently so, but the tines are often not long enough to properly twist noodles. This is a huge disadvantage for a fan of Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese noodle dishes and soups.

The other con, being a fan of the above mentioned dishes, is that the spoon function of the spork doesn't necessarily perform it's duty of containing liquid to the capacity that one would find useful when consuming soups.

In conclusion, we need a deep bowled long tined spork that would actually prove useful, but most ultimately ackward in handling.

That is my humble spork assessment.

 

[jonathanmphotography]

Well.. seeing that this incident happened on my posting, I can say the reason I put my watermark on my photography is just for copyright purposes. Do you have to put it all your photos, no.. but who is stopping you?? you do what you are most comfortable with. It has become a habit for me to just paste it on all my shots... but no one is stopping you... but some good points on this post. we all have our different opinions.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Guys,

I was reading a post where someone put some pictures up that were signed "___ Photography".

Somebody else responded and asked if he was a professional or if his last name was Photography. This got me thinking. Should you only use "Photography" after your name if you're a professional? Or can it be used if you're an amateur? As you can see from my name, I have opted to use the photography after it and I was just wondering what the protocol is.

Thanks,
Danny

Think about this...did VanGogh or Monet or Rembrandt sign 'artist' after their name? Did Andy Warhol even sign his work???

 

[skieur]

I'm finding that, in general, watermarks are SOLELY a distraction and an annoyance on a photo. Nobody pays them any good attention. I've never heard anyone say "hey, nice watermark" or "hey that's a great name for your ...business."

So I take it that you've never heard of using them to protect copyrighted images....

In the US, a copyright notice at the bottom right that has been taken off is sufficient proof of flagrant intentional violation of copyright and related punitive damages. Watermarks are unnecessary but registering your copyright is helpful, particularly related to works of greater quality.

Moreover in law suits the bar is lower than in criminal cases. It is not a matter of "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather it is a matter of convincing the judge that your argument is more logical and reasonable than that of the defendent.

skieur

 

[KmH]

Confusion seems to reign as to what a watermark is.

A watermark is very faint. What many call a water mark is actually called a copyright statement. Here in the US it's only valid if done the way the US Copyright office proscribes in Circular #3: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

The issue goes even deeper here in the US since the implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the implementation of 2 -1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

At issue today is what is known as CMI or Copyright Management Information.

Has anyone ever heard of metadata? Many photographers add a copyright statement right in their camera's EXIF data. All Nikon owners need to do is look up 'Comment' in their users manuals, go to the 'Comment' menu page and add the text for a copyright statement : (you can't use the © symbol (hold Alt key -0169 on the number keypad)) (c) 2010 Copyright owners name.

You can also put a copyright statement in the IPTC fields when you upload images. There are even fields where you can add key words, use license info, contact info, and more.

Investigate metadata templates.