Photo Watermarking

[Olli Vainio]

How about a simple "no right click" script on all photo's?

very effective I think.

Takes about 2 seconds to go around it...

[seahawk]

You know that a paid memebrship at a.net removes the watermark ? So the protection is worth 5 bucks, not more not less.

[atco]

You know that a paid memebrship at a.net removes the watermark ? So the protection is worth 5 bucks, not more not less.

Which is one of the many reasons I do not upload there. It's a stupid idea to have the option to remove the mark.

All I was demonstrating was that watermarked photos do not cause the Earth to stop spinning as some people would seem to have us believe. People still view them, they are still popular and people don't seem to leave the site in droves.

I'm beginning to get the message anyway, I sense that there is no interest whatsoever here in allowing photographers to protect their work.

[seahawk]

No, that is the wrong conclusion. The jetphotos.net team is currently in an active discussion on the request for watermarks and how to handle them. I personaly think that the way other sites handle it is only benefical to those sites and neither to the viewer nor the photographer.
However plz understand that any decision can not be made in a few hours or days. But it is discussed by the admins at the moment. Unfortunately I am not in a position to tell you more at the moment.

[Gerry]

Matt, you know I'm not a pro and I just like taking pictures
of aircraft too, but there is massive theft happening every week.

You all must realise the value of your own work.
It's not only media who lift photographs for nothing with a simple crop.
There are political movements out there thieving shots for their own ends.

Look at the discrediting of photographers over the 'political' flights.
Once the registations where made public, there was a feeding frenzy and
the syndication of those shots from organization to organization.
Many photogs where left completely helpless and chasing rainbows.
I was a victim too.
I had no choice but to pull my photographs from the internet.
This is only one simple example and it doesn't necessarily mean I was out
to make lots of money, but to save my reputation.

I hope it never happens to anyone else.

Gerry

[LX-A343]

Garry, you draw your conclusion a bit too early. Yes, as for now, we don't have the watermark and yes again, we don't allow photographers to put an own watermark, but as you can guess, some discussions are still going on. That said, I don't want to give any hopes to anybody.

First, the watermark itself: I also think, that the watermark has less impact on the hits, than previously thought. But if we were to add watermarks, then it must be for all members, also for paying members.

2nd - the use of personal watermarks: In my personal opinion as crew member I can't see us allowing photogs to add their own watermarks. Your example is OK, but what about the next one? Imagine the discussions afterwards regarding acceptance criterias for watermarks. I sincerly hope, we won't go that way.

Just my 0.02 CHF

Gerardo

[Greg Wilson]

2nd - the use of personal watermarks: In my personal opinion as crew member I can't see us allowing photogs to add their own watermarks.
Just my 0.02 CHF

Gerardo

Would that be the same condition if watermarking is ever allowed.
What I am saying is Image Copyright Greg Wilson in copyright bar and Jetphotos
daubed accross the image does not appeal to me.

[lmw]

As already mentioned this is a personal opinion and no one opinion is correct. I can see why some want a watermark in the belief that it stops image theft. The unfortunately reality is if you don't want people copying your images off the internet; don't put them online to begin with. That's the only sure way to make sure they can't be stolen.

Since we are discussing this and again, I’m not saying any one person’s ideas are wrong as they are personal opinions, here’s my opinion. In the end these watermarking ideas just make it more difficult for your innocent users to view your images, while at the same time make those that would steal them just a little more curious about all the loopholes they would need to thwart to the point of actually taking them just to see if they can.

While I admit some of the less obtrusive watermarks aren’t that bad or distracting to the eye, but at the same time those less obtrusive watermarked images are just all the more easier to steal if you really want to, thus making a very obtrusive watermark your best bet against theft. Then we come right back to the main problem of watermarking…the watermarks degradation of the image.

My 2 cents. As you can see, I’m against the watermark idea. It simply does no good in my opinion. Your best bet as already mentioned above is simply not to post your images. This however isn’t a very viable alternative if you are looking for any type of exposure. Your second best defense against it, is uploading small files. At this site a small file is 1024 pixels wide. This isn’t as small as I’d like to post, but necessary here. I will always post at 1024 here and never any larger. I don’t see any reason to post larger images and by doing so you are only making the image that much more usable in print by would be thieves.

[Chris Kilroy]

I'm beginning to get the message anyway, I sense that there is no interest whatsoever here in allowing photographers to protect their work.

Indeed, you're seriously jumping the gun with that statement, Garry.

The crew are geniuinly trying to work out (amongst ourselves) a solution which would be good for the site and for photographers trying to protect their work.

The problem I'm trying to find a way around is this:

A.net, on every photo, has the option for people to view watermark-free images buy purchasing a first class membership. I, and many others, see that as ludicrous, and nothing but a money-grab by Johan. However, what kind of competitive disadvantage do I put this site at if we choose to implement watermarks with no way for a user to view the photo without them, while our main competition gives them that?

Hopefully we'll be able to work out a solution that makes everybody happy.

EDIT: I must agree with Gerardo on one point. If we do begin to allow watermark implementation, the watermarking is going to have to be generated by the site, not 'personal' user-applied watermarks. As Gerardo said, yours is fine, but what about the next guy's? Do we then have to create (and enforce) standards on the maximum amount of color separation, pixel size, etc.? It would be so much easier if the watermarks were standard, applied the same to all photos.

[atco]

Sorry Chris, but based on what I was reading from the crew I didn't sense much support or enthusiasm.

I'm glad its at least being looked at.

I have a hard time figuring out why this issue seems to be so contentious.
If people are given a choice it seems to me that everyone wins:
1- Photogs who are concious of protecting their work feel confident of uploading images that otherwise would not be uploaded (Photog, site and viewer win)
2- Photogs who don't want to use it are not forced to
3- Anyone who does not like viewing watermarks does not have to open the image, the photographer loses a hit, but I think most would prefer the protection than the hits
4- Lets be honest, only a minority are going to want to use this feature, I would be amazed if the site gets filled with thousands of watermarked shots

I am by no means a professional, but I have sold many shots and I have also been ripped off many times. Recently I sold 2 shots to the Canadian TSB which brought me in a sum exceeding $500. Thankfully they were honest enough to contact me and seek permission, but how much have I lost from other thefts, many of which I will probably never even know about?
I don't take photos for the sole aim of making money, I do it because I really enjoy it, a little extra income is nice though, it pays for new equipment and travelling.

I could not agree more about the a.net fiasco of having paid members not view the watermarks. That offers almost zero protection, and I'm glad thats not being considered here.

Chris, I can't see how you would feel the site is disadvantaged by having watermarked shots. Without such protection in my case many shots will never be uploaded, is it not better to have watermarked shots than not to have them at all?
This site can exploit the weakness in the a.net system by ensuring the image is protected for everyone who views it, who knows it may encourage more uploaders.
If you feel the site traffic is suffering then lets revisit the issue, you know how strongly I feel about this site, the last thing I want to see is it suffer.

I'd hate to think this is creating extra workload and programming for you all, I know how much Gabe and the admins work on programming new features and all the other outstanding work that goes on behind the scenes.

Perhaps it could be proposed this way:
Watermarks are allowed but they must be opaque enough to allow the subject to be seen. Watermarks that cover and hide any part of the subject will be rejected as badmotive.
As I would suspect that a small percentage of users will want to use this perhaps a sample photo could be submitted to admin for approval?

I don't know how pratical it is, but maybe this would be less work than programming a watermark script?

I appreciate the effort you are putting into finding a solution that will hopefully benefit everybody.

[MaxPower]

I wish you luck dealing with that. Seeing some samples how and not a watermark does distruct the viewer. I must say I have been suprised and thus saying Im for using watermarks on my photos. Jetphotos generated and not personal user applied as above said. Thats seems fair and probably the best there is yet. Btw I wouldnt want to give the screeners more work to do just in case they find my user-watermark too distracting and doesnt match or fit the photo, you name it. I'll prefer saving their time to screen the watermarks. Whatever the results , we get this or not, I hope for the best and Im with Garry all the way now. Also to our crew. I really we get this intergrated into Jetphotos... Good luck to ya'll !

[seahawk]

Could you tell me, what kind of watermark you want and how big you want it ? For exampel would a smaller one that can be placed in one of the 4 corners be sufficent ? (choice of corner up to the photog)

[Top_Gun]

I'm also glad they you guys are still thinking about it.

I'm all for a Jetphotos.net as a set watermark. I already have my name entered as the photographer and I think it's a trade off of having Jet.net accept my pictures.

I wonder if like A.net could it be a simple click on apply light water mark or not apply. It seems the majority of the people wouldn't use it, but I'm sure others would if given the opportunity. But I agree it shouldn't be removed because someone has a membership.

I have no clue on how much programming it would take, but I appreciate the fact you guys are still talking about it

Could you tell me, what kind of watermark you want and how big you want it ? For exampel would a smaller one that can be placed in one of the 4 corners be sufficent ? (choice of corner up to the photog)

you don't want it on the corner, than the person can just clone it out. It needs to be across the middle subject, IMO

[seahawk]

Having it across the subject, however clearly affects the pleasure of he person viewing the picture. I wonder how much use you can get out of a photo up to 1600x1200 where a wholce corner had been cloned out, especially if you put it in an area with detaill.

[atco]

Agree with Dave, a corner watermark like I have been using does nothing. I have had pictures misused with my current watermark, as it has simply been re-cropped or cloned out. The watermark needs to be able to cover part of the subject of the photo in order to render it nearly impossible to clone out.