ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Help and Advice => Topic started by: Dmitry Rostopshin on January 07, 2010, 01:16:29 PM
-
Regarding latest FAQ issues and photos distribution to 3rd party. It would be nice to add automatic watermark to all photos with shipspotting.com and author name, for clear identification of the photo source after redistribution and so on.
-
Hi Derek
I think Dmitry means that a watermark etc be added to any photographs that are downloaded from the site?
Regards
-
Hi Derek
Just trying to be the translator :-)
However the software used by Vesseltracker.com does imprint both their web address and also the members copyright notice (content created by the member themselves). So it is possible but please do not ask me how!
Agreed that any watermark imprint can be photochopped out but it could well be the case that if the media are trying for a quick shot of a vessel for an article that they would not have the time to delete the watermark. This would aid the identification of any shots used without permission.
Just a thought especially as the new site is still in the development stage - I assume that AirNav still want members to come up with idea's?
Regards
-
Let's say current copyright marks for thumbnails are:
1. Too easily to crop in editor
2. Looks bad from design point of view.
3. Too annoying :-)
It should be something light and semitransparent. And this watermark should be available not only in thumbnails, but also in full-size photos.
I don't think that site-holders in this case will waste time to cut it out.
-
Watermarks will be the last drop for me. I have my doubts since a few months but I am waiting for the new site to come.
I allowed the company I work for to use my photos on their website. With watermarks this makes it impossible for them and I will have to look for another place to put my photos, most probably one of the large servers at my work.
Cheers
Fred
-
This subject doesn't seem to go away.
I thought this was a commuinity where we each uploaded images for the purpose of allowing others to view our postings and download them for their own use if they wanted to. No need for permission, that's just the way a community works.
In return we can download photos posted by others - it's called sharing.
Defacing photos with a watermark negates the whole concept of this site and like Fred I would be reluctant to bother posting photos if the images I uploaded were essentially ruined without my permission.
The film industry, musicians and software companies are losing millions of dollars through piracy, somehow the potential loss through someone stealing a couple of my photos seems rather insignificant, but then I never took any photos with a view to making money out of them.
Tony
-
I'm sure there would be software out there that would put a watermark on the image but as a layer. It could be programmed so that the watermark appears on the image when you looking at it as a guest but when you log in the watermark disappears..
I hope what I've written makes some sense...
Kind Regards
Cody
-
Derek sands wrote:
I think Tony has it right, this is a sharing site.
Watermarking will go against the grain for many but favoured by some.
This site provides the means to upload photos for all to see and share.
Think the only step necessary is that login should be needed
before downloading a photo.
Dare say many will disagree but thats my slant on it.
best regards
Derek
Hi Derek
Not before time if you ask me - its long nagged at me that 'non members' can access the site in the same way as I as a member can. Making it a pre-requisite to join the site as a member before being able to fully use its facilities gets my vote - you never know it may even put off those who download photographs for their own profits.
Regards
-
This has a lot of merit, but if this is the path we follow, could I make the following suggestions.
1. Acceptance is not automatic. If you register there should be say a 24 hour delay before your account is established. This would prevent the media for example, going on to the site and downloading a photo for a news item that has just broken. By the time they can do that, the story will be yesterdays news.
2. Accounts are disabled if they have not been used for a certain period of time and eventually deleted. This will control the number of accounts that have been set up purely for "one-off" downloads.
Regards
Tony
-
Hi Tony.
I totally agree with you suggestion for a 24 hours delay for the use of your account after registration.
Rgds:Hannes.
.
-
Yes, good suggestion, Tony!
Gerolf
-
tonyd wrote:
T2. Accounts are disabled if they have not been used for a certain period of time and eventually deleted. This will control the number of accounts that have been set up purely for "one-off" downloads.
Regards
Tony
Hi Tony
Yes I would imagine that member numbers on the present site are MUCH inflated by members who have joined and logged on once :roll:
Regards
-
I totally agree with this proposition, too.
Let's go further : acceptance is not automatic AND you have to wait 24 hours before beeing accepted AND you can't download a picture from this site if you don't have already uploaded some pictures to thIs site (let's say maybe 5 pics).
-
There are many shiplovers who are not in the position to upload photos. I disagree with you.
Cheers Fred
-
I agree with Fred as well.
Tony
-
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
-
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.
-
Simply because watermarks are ugly and spoils a photo and are easily to remove.
-
Watermarks are easy to remove?
Not necessarily, I daresay, seehttp://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo-1048893-Costa+Serena+and+others (http://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
-
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
-
Does it not?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Hi Steve,
You have hit the nail on the head.
If someone is willing to devote a lot of time (and probably a new pair of specs!), they may well be able to do it.
If someone wants a photo in a hurry, they will look elsewhere.
Cheers
Kelvin
-
kelvin wrote:
Hi Steve,
You have hit the nail on the head.
If someone is willing to devote a lot of time (and probably a new pair of specs!), they may well be able to do it.
If someone wants a photo in a hurry, they will look elsewhere.
Cheers
Kelvin
Hi Kelvin
Or do the 'decent thing' (I know we don't live in an Ideal World) and make contact with the copyright holder for permission to use and potentially secure a non watermarked copy ;-)
Regards
-
Thank you Derek, thank you Ken.
We'll probably have this discussion from time to time.
You never know, one day some one comes with a brilliant idea that's good enough for all of us. Or maybe new techniques brings a good solution.
Have fun
Fred
-
Great idea! This site brings about 20 times the traffic of Flickr for ships photos but about half Webshots's mere 2 000 opening each week for ships photos alone.
I might withdraw all my ships photos a from other sites if proper protection and marketing actions were provided here.
There are such things as Digimarc that are in hidden inside the data and more difficult to remove and a tracing on stolen is possible.
https://www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/
This at the present time, is much too costly but for the best shots of top professionals!
But to my opinion it will eventually become a standard procedure to use such a tracer.
There are plenty of ships photos here that would justify such a protection.
Why not take advantage of this situation now that the potential is here.
I suggest the shipspotting owners create section or mark the most interesting photos for a photostock market.
For one I believe my ships photos, like many of us all would bring income if properly marketed.
For now i only sell to local companies but the best ones, mostly aerials ships photos in ice, of foreign ships go without money rewards.
No other website is actually in the dominant position to take this opportunity.