Do you prohibit copying images from your web site?

[Justan]

Or do you do other things such as water marks, copy rights and so on…?

Or nothing at all??

[Rob C]

As mine isn't finished yet - almost there - perhaps too soon to comment in public, but it does state quite clearly that any or all copying is an infringement and that all my clients are perfectly able to prosecute.

That's not to say the pics are so bloody great that the world and its wife will be wanting to rip 'em off (the pics), but I do feel one has to do what one can to protect self and client and even one from the other!

;-)

Rob C

Edit: I see that the site has actually been added on retroactively - oh well, it's finished now - for the time being.

[Richowens]

Justan,

 I limit mine to 800 pixels in the long direction and go on blind faith. Besides that, I'm not so sure anyone would want one of my pictures.

Rich

[lightstand]

As this has been discussed before, just slightly ;-)  the chorus is going to shout that you can't protect or stop people from downloading your photos off your website.  And I use to be of the mind that just limit the size and they can't use the images for anything of real value.  

My new thoughts are to have a discreet but visible watermark on images and the next time I update my site I will implement this idea. Not to protect the images from being downloaded but to hopefully keep them advertising my website.  Two quick stories - last year I went to a talk by a reputable photo editor who had grabbed images from popular photographers, even thou this was illegal what I saw was that one NGO photographer who had his images watermarked just had a form of advertising to potential corporate clients.  Second quick perspective I have had images from my website grabbed and placed on blogs, kinda cool to have people discussing my humble photography especially when you consider all the incredible photographers out there - yet again a tasteful discreet watermark would be a clear way to assure advertisement back to my site.

back in school I remember my professors getting on my back about not signing my paintings, never felt the paintings were finished to the point of signing.  If I'm surfing through Flickr and come across some really cool images I really would rather see a watermark on the image to know who created them than just the image associated with a keyword.  

just my two cents.

[Rob C]

I'm not sure that putting on a watermark is really a good way of advertising - even when images are on the original website I find it annoying to have to look around mental corners to see the shot for what it is. I think keeping it to a max of 500pixels in the largest dimension may be enough to let viewers get a good take on what's there yet be of low enough ripp-off value to stop usage where one might have had a sale. Use where poor quality isn't a factor is never going to generate a return - perhaps that's just part of the risk of raising one's head above the parapet.

It's also interesting to note how many people who studies paint end up using cameras.

Rob C

[eleanorbrown]

No, they can download an image they want...I just don't get bent out of shape about it.  What can one do with a jpg 1000X1000 or smaller anyway. Eleanor

I'm not sure that putting on a watermark is really a good way of advertising - even when images are on the original website I find it annoying to have to look around mental corners to see the shot for what it is. I think keeping it to a max of 500pixels in the largest dimension may be enough to let viewers get a good take on what's there yet be of low enough ripp-off value to stop usage where one might have had a sale. Use where poor quality isn't a factor is never going to generate a return - perhaps that's just part of the risk of raising one's head above the parapet.

It's also interesting to note how many people who studies paint end up using cameras.

Rob C

[feppe]

No, they can download an image they want...I just don't get bent out of shape about it.  What can one do with a jpg 1000X1000 or smaller anyway. Eleanor

If the end-use is for web, you don't need larger than that.

[Luc Hosten]

I even have a picture of my dog on my site and say that if pictures are stolen he won't get food. A lot depends on what you photograph and have on your site - mine is mainly for pictures of surfing and I plaster them with my copyright and my name but they still get lifted. As an attempt to make the images really ugly I cloned of legs and faces for a while but still found the images popping up on facebook. I no longer do it as it takes too much time. I found that keeping them small and developing a relationship with the surfing market helped. I no longer put up good or creative images unless I have no use for them.

[feppe]

I even have a picture of my dog on my site and say that if pictures are stolen he won't get food. A lot depends on what you photograph and have on your site - mine is mainly for pictures of surfing and I plaster them with my copyright and my name but they still get lifted. As an attempt to make the images really ugly I cloned of legs and faces for a while but still found the images popping up on facebook. I no longer do it as it takes too much time. I found that keeping them small and developing a relationship with the surfing market helped. I no longer put up good or creative images unless I have no use for them.

Do you genuinely feel that if somebody uses your photo on facebook is a lost sale, rather than a free marketing opportunity? Are you seriously suggesting that making your photos ugly, tiny, and hiding your best work is the best way to market yourself as a photographer and creative professional?

[Luc Hosten]

Yes I do but my good work is not hidden. Free marketing is easy and there are many people and places that don't want to pay for images. I cannot afford to give away potential income. The site is mainly for surfing and I try to recover expenses ranging from the travelling to equipment. A picture lifted from the site means the person wanted it but was not prepared to pay R40 (about 8 dollars?). No great loss and if he wanted to show himself surfing with 1 leg so be it. My main work is freelance writing and providing articles and images to magazines, stock agencies, producing a calendar and I also have some work for sale in galleries and this provides the bulk of my marketing. I do have to protect my income and work.

[feppe]

I do have to protect my income and work.

I was contesting that the facebook pictures are not lost income: overwhelming majority of people putting pictures up on FB wouldn't pay 8 cents for a photo, let alone 8 dollars. I find cloning out a leg to "protect" your copyright juvenile at best, and probably hurting your bottom line rather than helping it.

[Rob C]

I was contesting that the facebook pictures are not lost income: overwhelming majority of people putting pictures up on FB wouldn't pay 8 cents for a photo, let alone 8 dollars. I find cloning out a leg to "protect" your copyright juvenile at best, and probably hurting your bottom line rather than helping it.

Worse, you'll eventually fall foul of some political correctness lobby!

Rob C

[Luc Hosten]

Juvenile at best? Suppose so, it is a difficult market to work in and I have stopped doing it. How would you have handled the situation?

[feppe]

Juvenile at best? Suppose so, it is a difficult market to work in and I have stopped doing it. How would you have handled the situation?

Same as you: I wouldn't. If it doesn't pay the bills and you photograph for money, what would be the point? It's better to move on to another market than wasting time and money on a market which isn't willing to pay for quality content.

[Anthony R]

edit

[LoisWakeman]

I put a watermark on, but am happy for the free publicity if people want to use my images elsewhere; I also have a few wallpapers to download. I actively encourage people to ask for non-profit use, and sometimes get a donation to a favourite charity in return.

I don't see a crappy inkjet print of a 640x480 image as a lost sale.

[EduPerez]

I never used watermarks, as I find them either too intrusive or too easy to remove / crop out. Photographs at my website are low resolution (800px max), released under a Creative Commons license (free for not-commercial use, unmodified, attribution required): better ask of a "fair use" than waste my non-existing resources pursuing copyright infringements. I just sell ("try to sell" would be a more precise term) prints, not interested in digital files.

But I am just an amateur...