Copyright issue - automatic watermark

[foggy]

I don't see the problem. If you don't want people to download your photos - don't upload them.

Personally I upload my photos here so that as many people as possible can view them. And as far as the media is concerned, I get about one or two emails a month from people (including large news agencies) that ask permission to use my photos, and I always agree as long as my name and shipsotting.com is quoted as the source.

Please don't start with idiot ideas such as watermarking or barring non-members from viewing (and thus downloading) photos. If anything this will certainly decrease traffic to this site, something I'm sure the new siteowners are NOT intrested in...

I have high hopes for the future of this site, but in the recent past it has been far too litte shipspotting and far too much dot.com about shipsotting.com, as Tony said - we are a community.

BRGDS / foggy

[Dmitry Rostopshin]

I'm not against photo distribution, but author and photo source should be identified in another sites. As we see in practice this does not always happen (were few topics about this last months). Technically this can be avoided by using watermark (like in airliners.net or vessel tracker and so on). Don't see anything idiotic in this idea. As for 24h authorisation etc - i think its too strict activities and can scare new users.

[Fred Vloo]

Simply because watermarks are ugly and spoils a photo and are easily to remove.

[itsfoto]

Watermarks are easy to remove?
Not necessarily, I daresay, seehttp://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo-1048893-Costa+Serena+and+others
Ugly? Admitted, but than, nobody forces you to look at them.
I will not ever submit pics to shipspotting without watermarks or any similar notification.
Your policy on this matter has made me remove every single one of my pics, no matter how popular they might have been.
No doubt the admin in charge will remove this new offence of mine in due haste, too.
Be my guest.
cheers
Uwe

[Guest]

itsfoto wrote:
Watermarks are easy to remove?
Not necessarily, I daresay, seehttp://www.shipspotting.com/modules/m ... 3-Costa+Serena+and+others
Ugly? Admitted, but than, nobody forces you to look at them.
I will not ever submit pics to shipspotting without watermarks or any similar notification.
Your policy on this matter has made me remove every single one of my pics, no matter how popular they might have been.
No doubt the admin in charge will remove this new offence of mine in due haste, too.
Be my guest.
cheers
Uwe

Hi Uwe

Its is a pleasant photograph but as you know it cuts across the site FAQ's in as much as it doesn't show full ships.

You also have countered your argument about watermarks as the submitted photograph doesn't have one ?

Regards

[itsfoto]

Does it not?

[Guest]

itsfoto wrote:
Does it not?

Hi Uwe

Well it certainly isn't showing up on my screen - watermark that is. I see your photograph has now made its way into the Deletions Category.

Regards

[Kelvin Davies]

Steve,
It is there; in the water, just to the left of the SH-Sariyer.
It is easily removable though.
During one of the previous go-arounds on this topic, I issued a challenge for anyone to successfully remove the watermark from one of my photos.
There was no response at all.
That topic has been removed from the forum so I can't reproduce it here.
I will re-iterate the challenge again; try one of these:
http://tinyurl.com/y85tq6r
http://tinyurl.com/y9ef5z8
Kelvin

[John Jones]

I can just about see some trace of a watermark. But it almost looks like evidence left after somebody had tried to remove it.
My concern here though is about the 'no photos of part ships' guidance we are given.
Its a tricky area. I think this picture is a brilliant composition made of 'part ships.' In fact many of the most striking pictures do not include the whole ship, and this is a picture that I certainly wouldn't want to delete.
But on the flip-side I can appreciate that if this rule were to be removed it would legitimise a whole raft of bit shots of poor quality.
There are some pretty bad shots on here which just about scrape through the site standards, and there are some excellent shots which due to a technicality do not.
These issues are very difficult and I'm sure we'll never all agree on them, but let's hope we can find a middle ground where common sense prevails when judging what is acceptable and what is not.
Regards
John J.

[itsfoto]

Thank yoy John,
The very point I was trying to make.
More common sense and guidance, less technicalities.
And thank yoy for your kind words about the pic, too.
cheers
Uwe

[Guest]

kelvin wrote:
Steve,
It is there; in the water, just to the left of the SH-Sariyer.
It is easily removable though.
During one of the previous go-arounds on this topic, I issued a challenge for anyone to successfully remove the watermark from one of my photos.
There was no response at all.
That topic has been removed from the forum so I can't reproduce it here.
I will re-iterate the challenge again; try one of these:
http://tinyurl.com/y85tq6r
http://tinyurl.com/y9ef5z8
Kelvin

Hi Kelvin

Aye, see it now - hardly noticeable to my eyes, just thought it was a shadow in the sea. Must book an appointment with Specsavers  :-o

Don't think your links are working Kelvin - they aren't for me anyway, but given my track record, that might just be me ?

Regards

[Guest]

Jonesy wrote:
SNIPPED > I'm sure we'll never all agree on them, but let's hope we can find a middle ground where common sense prevails when judging what is acceptable and what is not.
Regards
John J.

Hi John

The problem is that Admins being human (yes, they really are  :-)  ) is that each one would have his/her own view on what is a 'good shot' and thus we would have no uniformity. By having a rule that NO less than FULL ships takes away the need for any judgemental approach and thus cuts out any argument.

Regards

[Kelvin Davies]

Hi Steve,
You are right, the links don't work. Now doesn't that make you cross when that happens!
Tinyurl Creator seems to be poorly.
Try this then:
http://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=1403
or this:
http://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=3435
Cheers

[itsfoto]

This thread seems to divide itself into two different sub-topics, but they have something in common.
Re. the watermark: The idea is to leave a mark that is as unobtrusive as possible, yet sufficiently difficult to "make go away" to discourage any such attempt. The first objective seems to be achieved, as Steve so beautifully, if unintentionally, demonstrated. As for the second objective, well, obviously, if man made it, man can unmake it. Any watermark is removable. But if it is more difficult, it takes more effort and thus more deliberate criminal intent.
Not much can be done about that.
If you can't live with unobtrusive watermarks (and I suppose you can't), well, too bad, it's your loss, not mine.
Re. that other sub-topic, breach of whole-ship-(or any other)-rule:
The question is, do we want a regime, where common sense, patience and tolerance prevails, or do we want fundamentalism to rule supreme?
Steve is right. Even admins are human, well, let them be human. Any admin can at any time turn the blind eye to doubtful issues.
cheers
Uwe

[Guest]

kelvin wrote:
Hi Steve,
You are right, the links don't work. Now doesn't that make you cross when that happens!
Tinyurl Creator seems to be poorly.
Try this then:
http://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=1403
or this:
http://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=3435
Cheers

Hi Kelvin

Good shots - If someone has the time and will. I reckon they could clone out the watermark that cuts across the vessels - QE2 would be the most difficult but given the time it would be possible.  However it is all about time and someone wanting to use the shot in a hurry (Press from instance) would surely be put off unless they were desperate for a shot.

Regards