« Keep Your Freakin' Hands Off My Picture | Main | Free Advertising (formerly 'Random Excellence') (Vincent Laforet) »

Friday, 29 June 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e00989c33f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Presenting and Protecting Your Pictures Online:

Comments

'Nuff and well said. Once educated, it's a personal decision. Time to move on, but appreciate the well reasoned approach.

I've found your comments on copyright and theft very interesting over the past couple of days, and I agree with your outlook. I've been putting my pictures on the Web for years one way or another and I've always thought that, if anyone steals one of my pictures, they have a much bigger problem right there than I'll ever have as a result.

Just to add some interesting information, Australian law dictates that copyright is automatically granted to a photographer unless otherwise signed away. So we don’t even have to bother with all that copyright registering that we keep reading about.

Another feasible protection is "Digimarc". Their tools insert an invisible "digital" watermark on the photo, that can be read even if the picture was resized, cropped, etc. They also provide a web crawler service to find your photos online automatically. Fees are very reasonable.

Nonetheless I guess eventually most paid photo work is for prints, not web jpegs.

Samuel Ho,

It's the same everywhere - copyright is automatic. However, in 'real life' (i.e. a court of law) automatic copyright doesn't mean squat - you'll only win if you registered it. Courts have no interest in determining who was first otherwise ...

Here is an interesting article by David Hoffman from the EPUK website (Editorial Photographers UK)....

http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/491/enforcing-your-copyright

"In February last year I spent a couple of evenings specifically looking for my pictures on the web. By the end of the year those two evenings had led to my recovering more than £27,000 in fees due from seven major sites."

I hasten to point out that I really don't think the author would have chased Mike for a fee for a "Random Excellence" link, even had he been in the UK.

"Personally, I feel that it's worth it to make your work look good and suffer some piracy, rather than be miserly about it."

I totally agree. I think that posting tiny images just so they won't get stolen is like a greengrocer pouring gasoline over his fruit to make it unpalatable to thieves.

Totally agree; I have -never- placed any watermarks or any attempt to prevent copyright infringement on my photos. The idea is that; well I'm not living on photography for a living - it's a hobby and as far as I'm concerned people can use those small images I load up on the web for wallpapers on their desktops if it pleases them. It's validation of my art, if anything.

What -are- people going to be able to do in terms of personal gain with 640x480 size measly images anyways?

The comments to this entry are closed.