Photo theft

[Poseidon]

Smugmug does it for me!

However, you can create a text layer in Photoshop, and then place it on the image. I use white text and adjust the transparency a little. It is pretty simple to do really.

 

[JuniorMC8704]

when i used to watermark my photos i used

watermarkfactory.com

easy to use, and tons of different options.

 

[gparr]

I've had my photos stolen by cropping out my copyright line and by using Save for Web in Photoshop, which strips out all of the EXIF and identifying data. The only effective way to prevent it is to be diligent in pursuing those who steal.

Jabber, it's generous of you to make your images available to everyone. I'm not so generous. I have invested too much money in equipment and, even more so, too much time and energy to develop my skills to allow anyone to make a profit from my images. As with others, I'm willing to let people use my images to further the hobby, provided they ask permission and state what they are using the image for. If you're using my images to make money, I need compensation.
Gary

 

[cparka23]

How do you watermark your photos?

Another way is to sign your name onto a piece of paper, then scan it into Photoshop. You can then define it as a brush preset, which is nice because it gives you the versatility of the brush adjustments in addition to the layer adjustments. I like this method because it looks more artistic than the type fonts, almost like painting your signature onto a canvas.

For best results, sign big and zoom in w/ the scanner to pick up the details. It won't be a true vector object so it's better to have it large and shrink it down than to start small and blow it up. The latter will give you 'jaggies' if you make huge prints. And obviously, don't sign it the same way you sign receipts or documents, but you can make a signature for photos and use it for all your works.

 

[Coral Keeper]

Ok, thanks everyone!

 

[Coral Keeper]

Also, which one should I get for photos?

News:

- Feb, 20 '07 - Video Watermark Factory 1.0 release Download NOW>
- Feb, 01 '07 - Special offer 25% discount Order now>
- Sep, 26 '06 - Watermark Factory 2.5 release Download NOW>
- May, 15 '06 - Watermark Factory 2.10 release Download NOW>
- Jul, 27 '05 - Watermark Factory 2.0 release Learn more>
- Feb,19 '05 - Watermark Factory 1.9 release

 

[flricordia]

all this crap over a picture...stupid...let it be known that EVERYONE is welcome to use any pic i may happen to put up anywhere on the internet. your welcome

That's great, but does anyone want any of your pics? I have made good IRS taxed money selling pics of reptiles and articles and though I do not make a living with corals, I certainly do not want someone else making a living off of what I work hard at. At least not someone I do not know and offers no compensation, much less a return acknowledgment that I am aware they have been using my photo but would rather ignore and even challenge me as to whether it was my photo or a random photo that they feel they can copy off the Internet and claim as their own and not only that but claim it is the coral they are selling the person bidding on it.
Not only are they stealing my pic they are selling something they do not have. I for one will nto sit by and let it happen to either myself or my fellow reefers. Sorry, but if you want pple to take advantage of you and those around you, don't worry, there are many like me that will do our best to put a stop to it.

 

[AquaWorldPSC]

Agreed with flricordia,
If you buy a coral off stolen picture you might not get what is pictured, also people spend good money for their camera gear. I just spent $1699 on a Canon 50d and will be spending $599-ish on a Canon 100mm Macro. I absolutely don't want other people using my pics without my permission. That's like me buying all that gear for other people's benefit. Also whenever someone uses someone else's pic the stealer will take full credit for it and the owner will look like the stealer.

 

[flricordia]

Agreed with flricordia,
If you buy a coral off stolen picture you might not get what is pictured, also people spend good money for their camera gear. I just spent $1699 on a Canon 50d and will be spending $599-ish on a Canon 100mm Macro. I absolutely don't want other people using my pics without my permission. That's like me buying all that gear for other people's benefit. Also whenever someone uses someone else's pic the stealer will take full credit for it and the owner will look like the stealer.

Ouch. Wish I could do an outfit like that. One of the best macros out there. Can't wait to steal, I mean, SEE some pics off of that gear. Kidding on the steal, but I am sure you know that.

 

[AquaWorldPSC]

LOL, Thanks, Of course I know Ha!

 

[ReefDoctor]

I actually HOPE that my efforts can benefit others If I put a price tag on it then pay me Otherwise use it and say Thank You if you remember.. It does no harm to me for someone to use my watermarked photo.. I have alot of cash in my camera also.. i just dont waste the Karma and time fretting over others benefitting from my efforts too much negative enery in that LOL I also do not care if the guy sitting next to me doing the same job makes more than me I just care to do my job well... Do things well and good will come to you... pictures, sales ect...

 

[Mr.Firemouth]

RDM, I am sure most of us don't want freeloaders using our pics, articles, ideas or anything else to make money while we get nothing! My tax dollars pay quite a bit for freeloaders already! Let them buy a camera, learn how to use it, and take their OWN pictures!

Here is another link to the problem, The FBI has a whole copyright division BTW...
http://www.uberfrags.net/forums/showthread.php?t=842

and...
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

any complaint filed here pertaining to digital(Intenet Pics)is investigated by the FBI.

 

[FISH PROS]

A photo is the property of the photographer the minute it is created. That also means the photographer holds the copyright. Photos posted on the Internet do not become public domain property. Christina may be "a great chick," but she used someone else's property to generate profit for herself, without asking permission or offering compensation. That's pure theft. The medium from which she obtained the photo is irrelevant. Saying that if you don't want photos stolen, don't "post them in the worlds [sic] largest market place [sic]," is the same as saying to a book author, "if you don't want your words stolen, don't publish a book." If Christina walked into your garage, took your lawnmower, sold it, and kept the profits without asking permission, you'd consider that theft. This is no different.

Should Flricordia have contacted her first? That argument could be made. However, as Flricordia pointed out, this involved two other entities. IMO, he chose the correct route and it is to eBay's credit that they enforced their own rules and acted promptly.

Gary

Wrong. There was no copyright on the pic, once it hits the internet its free game unless otherwise stated,just cause u took the pic does not make it copyrighted. your analogies (sp?) are just a lil way over the top you cant compare taking a pic off the web the same as having ur lawnmower jacked or stealing words out of an published copyrighted book they are not the same. Do you know howmany pics that are so called stolen off the web? if everyone thought like you evryone would be sueing everyone. come on now nobody broke into anyones office nor house or anything else they were put on the web for everyone and there grandma to see.

 

[gparr]

From the US Gov't copyright site:

"In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy†of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work†– is distinct from the “work†itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work†is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

Basically, if I create the image, I own the copyright. If you use it without my permission, you have infringed my copyright and can be liable for damages.

If I own the copyright to an image, I have these basic rights:

Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights. Section 106 of the copyright law provides the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right:

To reproduce the work in copies;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly;
To display the copyrighted work publicly
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Section 501 of the copyright law states that “anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ...is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author.â€

Because it's displayed on the Internet doesn't make it free or public domain.

My examples were not over the top. To use my photo without my permission is no different than plagiarizing a written work.

Here's what happens to a student who commits plagiarism at the Univ. of Illinois.

"Faculty should refer to Article 1, Part 4, 1-403, for the range of penalties considered appropriate in cases of plagiarism. The penalty to be exacted is at the discretion of the instructor. However, it is recommended that in serious cases without mitigating circumstances, the student receive a failing grade for the course. In the light of an increased level of plagiarism due to the ease of copying from the internet, it is hoped that the severity of the penalty will act as a deterrent. Whatever course of action an instructor chooses, that instructor must follow the procedures prescribed in 1-404. The Department of History also requires that whenever a penalty is enforced, instructors are to document the case with a formal letter to be inserted in the student’s file. This will alert future instructors that the student has a track record of plagiarism. If you have questions, contact the Department Chair directly."

Gary

 

[ReefDoctor]

Cant argue that...

.......

 

[flricordia]

Wrong. There was no copyright on the pic, once it hits the internet its free game unless otherwise stated,just cause u took the pic does not make it copyrighted. your analogies (sp?) are just a lil way over the top you cant compare taking a pic off the web the same as having ur lawnmower jacked or stealing words out of an published copyrighted book they are not the same. Do you know howmany pics that are so called stolen off the web? if everyone thought like you evryone would be sueing everyone. come on now nobody broke into anyones office nor house or anything else they were put on the web for everyone and there grandma to see.

But you are wrong. Placing a pic on the Internet does not make it public domain and that is the problem, pple think it is public domain and use it for their own purposes. You take a picture, you do not have it copyrighted, it is still your pic. Fortunately, the belief that it is public domain is coming to a halt. It has taken some time but the rights of the owner of a photograph placed on the Internet is slowly, but surly being protected, all this brought about because of certain pples ignorance and/or dishonesty in respects to other pples property.
Just because a person does not throw a watermark, copyright, etc over the face of a photo, and places it on the Internet, does not make it public domain.

 

[Mr.Firemouth]

Fish Pros, Welcome to the forum.
In response to your first post...
Copyright Infringement is against the Laws of the USA.
From the copyright office...

Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

You can and should be sued for stealing something that you do not have a right to take, and failure to comply with these laws can lead to a criminal record filed by the FBI and the U.S. Justice dept.

Ebay complies with complaints as it is there responsibility to comply with the LAW.

 

[AquaWorldPSC]

I actually HOPE that my efforts can benefit others If I put a price tag on it then pay me Otherwise use it and say Thank You if you remember.. It does no harm to me for someone to use my watermarked photo.. I have alot of cash in my camera also.. i just dont waste the Karma and time fretting over others benefitting from my efforts too much negative enery in that LOL I also do not care if the guy sitting next to me doing the same job makes more than me I just care to do my job well... Do things well and good will come to you... pictures, sales ect...

RDM, But people can crop the watermark out or remove it in other ways.

 

[ReefDoctor]

I believe that to be wrong... If there is a watermark it should stay... as liberal as I am with my NON copyrighted photos I want the Watermark to stay You will find this watermark on ALMOST all of my phtography... Please feel free to post and use this image for free and in any fashion you like as long as the watermark remains (Unchanged)

One of my "Dreaming" series...

 

[returnofsid]

Fish Pro, you're absolutely incorrect. Photographs are owned by the photographer. The photographer does NOT have the burden of having to copyright the product. The picture, when posted into any type of medium, including the internet, does NOT become public domain. Better read up on the laws. Photographers have very distinct protections, even several falling under the 1st Amendment. For instance, a photographer can stand on public property and photograph through a window of a private dwelling and it's legal. They can then post said pictures on the internet and they are NOT public domain.

I also believe that this type of "theft" should be dealt with, not let slide. It is no different than any other type of theft. If it's allowed to happen, what next??

Even if this ebay seller is a great person, they made a mistake...a potentially criminal mistake. They need to be made aware of that, AND of the potential consequences. The OP contacted this particular ebay seller, in an effort to deal with this in a less public way. The ebay seller made the decision to respond in an accusatory and defensive manner. The whole thing could have been handled differently had the ebay seller made the decision to respond in a responsible manner instead. It might have even worked into a contractual agreement to use the OPs photos, in a legal manner.