Watermarks

[rabanito]

I am looking with interest to some very beautiful pictures presented in this forum.
But some of them  are really RUINED with monster-watermarks.
I understand the need of copywrighting the work but, for the observers, here in the Internet or in an Art Gallery, those foreign objects have nothing to do with "art"
Are there maybe other means to protect the work, perhaps more discreet "© 's"?
We would  enjoy the pictures all the more.

[petermfiore]

I am looking with interest to some very beautiful pictures presented in this forum.
But some of them  are really RUINED with monster-watermarks.
I understand the need of copywrighting the work but, for the observers, here in the Internet or in an Art Gallery, those foreign objects have nothing to do with "art"
Are there maybe other means to protect the work, perhaps more discreet "© 's"?
We would  enjoy the pictures all the more.

+1000

Peter

[KLaban]

Worse still, watermark signatures.

;-)

[RSL]

+2000

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

i don't like watermarks either, but I understand that some photographers have their work ripped off without giving the photographer credit or payment.
So I accept the use of some watermarks and try to ignore them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Every piece of art is signed. Why not photographs? I love mine. And it is not about copyright at all.

[rabanito]

i don't like watermarks either, but I understand that some photographers have their work ripped off without giving the photographer credit or payment.
So I accept the use of some watermarks and try to ignore them.

Well I understand that but the topic in this thread is "But is it Art?"
Listening to say Chopin with somebody beating battery drums beside the piano  is not so good as without the drums :-)
In the showcases I think one could expect the same standards as in a say, gallery

I say this with due respect, some pictures are really good and it's a pity that we have to look at them after copying them to Photoshop only after filling them with some "Content-Awareness"
I'm joking of course but anyway...
We discussed not long ago about the cigarette butt one could oversee when tripping the shutter :-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In the showcases I think one could expect the same standards as in a say, gallery...

Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?

[RSL]

Every piece of art is signed. Why not photographs? I love mine. And it is not about copyright at all.

Right, Slobodan. Unless you're making photographs for pay, copyright adheres to the creator. But the problem Eric's pointing to is that even though you own the copyright, and put a copyright notice in the IPTC core; even though you've registered the copyright, if somebody rips off your photograph you need to go to court to prove you own it, and even if you win in court you may not recover even what you paid in attorney fees.

Yes. I sign my prints too. But that's not the same thing.

But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.

[faberryman]

But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.

I'll agree with with that. Especially when it is one of those fake signature things plastered on the image.

[rabanito]

Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?

Works of art in galleries and museums are signed, I agree.
Usually inconspicuosly, some on the photograph where it doesn't disturb and mostly on the mat
You have a beautiful signature but I was referrrin to things like the attache one.
I wrote "MONSTER" Watermarks
That's my point :-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... chest-thumping...

The whole art is about chest-thumping. With the exception of Vivian Maier, perhaps.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I was referrrin to things like the attache one...

And can you point to an example on LuLa of that kind?

[rabanito]

And can you point to an example on LuLa of that kind?

I could of course, that's why I started this topic.
And those beautiful copyrighted leaves no one could steal :-)

But I won't. Would look like pointing "ad hominem" in my opinion.

You could find them if you look. Or you just believe me.
I meant this to be taken in a general way anyway :-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But I won't. Would look like pointing "ad hominem" in my opinion.

You could find them if you look...

I don’t think you understand well what ad hominem is. Pointing to a particular picture isn’t.

I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”

[faberryman]

I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”

You have obviously grown insensitive to it. I find your signature in Reply #5 excessive and distracting from what is otherwise a nice image.

[rabanito]

I don’t think you understand well what ad hominem is. Pointing to a particular picture isn’t.

I’ve been looking at LuLa images for years, much longer than you, and can’t remember any such a drastic copyright logo or signature. Maybe a few slightly excessive size logos, but surely not enough to warrant a thread about it as a “problem.”

Look Slobodan. I'm not talking about a "problem". It bothers me a little and I just threw the question to the forum to hear different opinions
Yes, slightly excessive  size logos bother me.

If I get a "Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico" with the signature of Ansel Adams in the middle of the sky, it bothers me.
IMHO it is NOT tahe same and I could not ignore it.

As for the "ad hominem" part, the pictures are copyrighted with the name of the author, not anonymous :-)
I consider naming them in a critique, even indirectly, could be felt as a personal. No need for that.
Sorry if my Latin is not so good :-)

[RSL]

See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!

[Kevin Gallagher]

See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!

HA!! Well said Russ!

[KLaban]

See. . . We don't need to argue about politics. We can argue about anything!

No we can't.

;-)