photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Better Info on 23 Jun 2010 21:15 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:44:58 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-06-23 18:43:04 +0100, sobriquet said: > >> On 23 jun, 19:07, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can >>> still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of >>> a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. >> >> That depends on technological developments and the way they (ought to) >> influence >> our interpretation of rights associated with the creation of digital >> content (like the right to be acknowledged for your efforts in case >> you make significant contributions to the pool of creations in human >> culture). >> I would say it's fine if an photographer would take pictures at 12 to >> 24 megapixel and they share 1 to 5 megapixel versions for people to >> share online as free publicity which might motivate people to pay for >> an exhibit of new work that the photographer can later make available >> online (or at the same time if he expects people to enjoy fine quality >> prints of his work anyway and can easily make in income that way or by >> selling signed printed pictures). > >That is very helpful. I can experiment with shared image resolution to >ensure it cannot match the original work. I hadn't even thought about >the aspects of technological developments, publicity, or even signing >my own work. This far, my work would have been rejected if it had my >signature on the image. Something to aim for next year, perhaps. > >Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have had to remove *all* of my online photography from the net over the years. After having it been ripped-off by people that market screen-savers, those who publish technical literature for animal species, even because of those that used them for references for their hand-drawn technical drawings to illustrate their scientific literature (derivative works), in order to complete their master's degrees in that area of interest. Above all, do NOT rely on any "electronic watermarking" technique. (DigiMarc� is the biggest scam to have ever been perpetrated on the unknowing public, and is still supported in many graphic editors.) Each and every digital watermark method can be circumvented, often by nothing more than a 3-5 degree rotation and back. Nor rely on overlaying a signature on top of an image. Someone who is adept at using image editing tools can easily remove any signature-overlay in less than 30 minutes of simple cloning work, turning it back into an identification-free image. Having said all that, I found that it is best to keep ALL images at or below 640x480 size, image content dependent. (Always ignore the childish and manipulative trolling of those that want to see more resolution than that.) If the image is of a subdued scene taken in foggy or misty conditions, this can withstand vast amounts of upsampling and still be a marketable and printable photo, even if displayed publicly at 640x480 pixels. No matter the case, always use high levels of JPG compression on the image. This destroys all edges and fine details. My favorite editor allows me to select JPG compressions in 2 flavors (high and low quality) and in 0.1% JPG-compression increments. Giving me a total of 2002 different JPG compression schemes to use. If the image is ran through that JPG compression algorithm two times using a different compression level each time (randomly chosen for each applied instance), the permutations become almost astronomically impossible to undo. Small image size with high JPG compression (preferably applied twice at two different settings), is your best bet to retain your possession of the original image. But having said all that, one image of an animal species that I presented to some professionals for ID purposes, was only shown to them in a 360x240 pixel resolution at high JPG compression. Even then they stole the image for their own publications, because that image exists nowhere else in the world. They could make use of that image for printing even at that resolution (and tried, but were taken to court after having done so, losing their financial asses and their lifelong professional careers and degrees in the process). Use your own judgment. If the image is a "one of a kind" rarity, show it to no-one online at any resolution. If it is of worthwhile artistic content, again show it to no-one online at any resolution. If it is just your standard stock-photography (marketable to any degree) keep the widest dimension at or below 640 pixels and use a large amount of JPG compression on it (applied at least 2 times at different settings), to prevent others from making any financial use of it. At least then you'll have something of such higher quality that the original owner of that image cannot then be doubted if it comes to legal proceedings. Then too, only keep images online for a set period of time. 24-48 hours is about my limit. The longer you leave an image online the greater chance you'll have of it being replicated by search-engine surf-bots, and humans just as equally devoid of moral sensibility and respect for others. This has been my professional experience with images and sharing online in the digital-age. I adhere to these self-designed concepts after years of experience without them. Make of it what you will.
From: Ray Fischer on 23 Jun 2010 23:30 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > But you're only prepared to share other peoples information and >> >> > intellectual >> >> > property you never share your own, probably because it's worthless, but as >> >> > yet I've not seen you share your bank details or anything of any use >> >> > unless >> >> > it comes from someone else. >> >> >I also share my own information.. I have many pictures and videos >> >> >online >> >> >> Where ? >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/ >> >> And what's under each photo? >> >> "Some rights reserved" >> >> Hypocrite. > >You simply can't put your pictures on flickr with "No rights >reserved". What a pathetic excuse, hypocrite. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 00:14 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010062400012543107-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > > It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From > what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless in > many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the > impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely > accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. The purpose of the copyright notice is just what the words mean. To put the world on notice that you claim rights to the work. The instant your work is created you have a common law copyright. The generally accepted short form simply takes away a defense of accidental unauthorized use. the notice also makes it clear that the work has not been placed in the public domain. If you do not take some reasonable step to protect your rights, you can lose them. the notice serves that function. The form is not really important, as long as it is clear and unambiguous. Intellectual property litigation is expensive. Usually the guy with the deepest pocket wins. In a prior posting I mentioned that prior to posting any image I thought might have commercial value, I would only do so on a site with right click disabled. -- Peter
From: Ray Fischer on 24 Jun 2010 02:47 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 24 jun, 05:30, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > But you're only prepared to share other peoples information and >> >> >> > intellectual >> >> >> > property you never share your own, probably because it's worthless, but as >> >> >> > yet I've not seen you share your bank details or anything of any use >> >> >> > unless >> >> >> > it comes from someone else. >> >> >> >I also share my own information.. I have many pictures and videos >> >> >> >online >> >> >> >> Where ? >> >> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/ >> >> >> And what's under each photo? >> >> >> "Some rights reserved" >> >> >> Hypocrite. >> >> >You simply can't put your pictures on flickr with "No rights >> >reserved". >> >> What a pathetic excuse, hypocrite. > >Ok, so show me a picture So that you can steal it, thief? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Pete on 24 Jun 2010 07:47
On 2010-06-24 05:14:31 +0100, Peter said: > "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message > news:2010062400012543107-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > >> >> It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From >> what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless >> in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the >> impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely >> accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. > > The purpose of the copyright notice is just what the words mean. To put > the world on notice that you claim rights to the work. The instant your > work is created you have a common law copyright. The generally accepted > short form simply takes away a defense of accidental unauthorized use. > the notice also makes it clear that the work has not been placed in the > public domain. If you do not take some reasonable step to protect your > rights, you can lose them. the notice serves that function. The form is > not really important, as long as it is clear and unambiguous. > Intellectual property litigation is expensive. Usually the guy with the > deepest pocket wins. The form of the notice is important. If Barney adds the notice (c) B Rubble it informs the reader that Barney hasn't bothered to take the first step in protecting his work and it's very unlikely that Barney will be able to defend his rights. http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_notices > In a prior posting I mentioned that prior to posting any image I > thought might have commercial value, I would only do so on a site with > right click disabled. The right-click disabling is frequently performed via javascript, making the feature useless. Any image that can be viewed can also be saved. It's probably been saved automatically in the browser cache (not all browsers honour the no-cache meta tags, when present). -- Pete |