Here we go... another copyright watermark

[schlotz]

You stroll into a wonderful photography based website, start to settle in and there it is, an essay which most might describe as read worthy yet the author just has to provide you their work with a watermark on it.  Never mind the smallish frame is most likely at 72dpi and all but useless elsewhere, it's there none the less.  The analogy, watching pro golfers take off their glove to putt.  Now the masses do it regardless that it doesn't improve their skill and it only serves to prolong play.  Too bad we haven't evolved beyond golfers.   

Matt

[Rob C]

You stroll into a wonderful photography based website, start to settle in and there it is, an essay which most might describe as read worthy yet the author just has to provide you their work with a watermark on it.  Never mind the smallish frame is most likely at 72dpi and all but useless elsewhere, it's there none the less.  The analogy, watching pro golfers take off their glove to putt.  Now the masses do it regardless that it doesn't improve their skill and it only serves to prolong play.  Too bad we haven't evolved beyond golfers.   

Matt

Wish I had a tiger in my photographic tank; all I see is a sleepy pussycat.

;-(

Rob C

[Wayne Fox]

The analogy, watching pro golfers take off their glove to putt.  Now the masses do it regardless that it doesn't improve their skill and it only serves to prolong play.  Too bad we haven't evolved beyond golfers.

Interesting analogy.  Do you actually play golf, or is this misguided analogy just your perception of something you don't really have any experience with?

[Schewe]

Too bad we haven't evolved beyond golfers.   

Wow...this is what you have to say with your third ever post on the LuLa forums?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Wow...this is what you have to say with your third ever post on the LuLa forums?

There has been a proliferation of new posters over the past three weeks.  Some have posted meaningless claptrap and two warranted a report to the moderators from me.  Maybe it is the impending cold weather that is bringing out the trolls.

[John.Murray]

There's more at issue here than just an individual 72dpi .jpg file being "spoiled".  That file represents the author's rights to his own work.  There is more than one opinion regarding "fair use" and intellectual property rights bouncing around these days . . .

There is a great video series; "Where the (*&%( are my Pictures" available for purchase - in one of the segments these issues are discussed at length with some pretty sobering assertions by Seth Resnick.

Regarding the golf issue; have you looked at this guys work?  I'd say he's welcome to take off a glove or anything else for that matter if it results in images like that . . . .

[John Camp]

I do think it's presumptuous of a new poster to take on a long-time LuLa contributor over a matter like copyright marks...but I have to say, I don't like them, either. I think they look cheap, and they don't provide any real level of protection. If you want to steal the photograph, you can take the copyright mark off in what -- 10 seconds?-- in Photoshop. Also the photographer has a natural copyright whether or not the copyright mark is there. The mark's only function is to provide a small warning to someone who is completely ignorant of copyright law. Against what the OP suggests, there *are* uses for photos that small -- for exactly the same use as here, on websites.

But the main thing is, they look crappy -- it's like a pop-up commercial. You can't avoid looking at it, and here on a beautiful print of a gorgeous natural scene is a crappy little legalistic reminder not to steal the work. Imagine Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico with a copyright notice, say, over the graveyard...

[tom b]

I did a google image search on Atget and to my surprise there was a getty images watermark on a number of them. Now that is where annoyance starts to bight.

Cheers,

[jeremyrh]

I do think it's presumptuous of a new poster to take on a long-time LuLa contributor over a matter like copyright marks...

Umm .. surely .. if someone is right, he's right, regardless of how long he's been around? A cat can look at a king.

[john beardsworth]

I don't think he was wrong and would agree with how John Camp put it.

John

I do think it's presumptuous of a new poster to take on a long-time LuLa contributor over a matter like copyright marks...but I have to say, I don't like them, either.... But the main thing is, they look crappy -- it's like a pop-up commercial. You can't avoid looking at it, and here on a beautiful print of a gorgeous natural scene is a crappy little legalistic reminder not to steal the work. Imagine Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico with a copyright notice, say, over the graveyard...

[panoman]

I'm listed as a newby even though I've been a photographer for sixty years, and like eveyone else I have an opinion on copywright simbols. I don't like to look at them, but I feel it should be the poster choice, like excessive HDR. If I don't like it, it is gone in a single click. I have read that removing a copywright simbol is a violation of federal laws, and is procecuited in federal court, with much more sever punishment if convicted. If true, That would me reason enough for me to use them, but I never have.