Worries about posting images

[Eric Rose]

It seems I have only run into amateurs who refuse to post images online because they are worried someone might download it. Or if they do post they often put ugly copyright notices on their images.

Fortunately here at Photrio those that post don't go the copyright notice route.

But really what can someone do with a 1000px (just over 3 inches) image anyway. The worst they can do is put it on their own website and represent it as their own. As an amateur your not loosing any money and you will probably never know. Nor will your friends.

The big name pros don't seem to have a problem putting up their images. Why is it that it's mainly amateurs who are so paranoid?

 

[BradS]

I'm not a professional (photographer), not really even an amateur...just a hobbyist. I just assume that if it is posted on the web, it will be used without permission. I just don't care.

...but to answer your question, why are amateurs so paranoid? maybe, it isn't so much paranoia as it is an inflated sense of importance?

 

[winger]

Well, my mother-in-law has been known to try and print from tiny files as well as getting her daughter to "upsize" them. But that's mostly limited to shots of her grandchildren.

I think amateurs who want to make money with photography (and aren't, yet) think they'll lose more if they don't add the copyright notice. Pros know they're getting paid.

 

[removed account4]

IDK i can think of a handful of reasons:

maybe it is just what they say, and they just don't want anyone to see any of their photographs
whether they re great or less great;
or maybe they don't want to present their work online or wherever because they
don't want people to critique the photography they make because the images are personal and not public ;

or maybe they don't do photoshop or gimp or xyz editing software well so their good image looks less good online;

or they for whatever reasons don't upload small files but big ones at one point and someone grabbed them and
submitted them to jones soda company and they ended up on root beer bottles ;

i could keep going but i ran out of steam ...

 

[Arklatexian]

I'm not a professional (photographer), not really even an amateur...just a hobbyist. I just assume that if it is posted on the web, it will be used without permission. I just don't care.

...but to answer your question, why are amateurs so paranoid? maybe, it isn't so much paranoia as it is an inflated sense of importance?

+1

 

[MattKing]

For some people a print is the only version of their photography that satisfies them. For those people, a decision not to share internet versions of what they do is a decision based on what they like and appreciate and value about photography.

 

[1kgcoffee]

^what he said
Most of my flickr work is posted at the max resolution in case others would like to print. As long as it's not big name advertising, I could care less what others use it for. The joy in photography is not a monetary end for me.
And suppose someone copied a jpeg of an Ansel Adams or an Edward Weston, did some photoshop magic and printed it out on nice paper. It might be worth $100 to some ignorant schmuck, but no collector wants a fake.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Long ago I had a lot of images of the California coastline posted on one of those photobucket-type sites. These were originally on film, but later scanned and uploaded. A few of those photos were very popular, they had a high number of downloads, and I began seeing them posted elsewhere. I was flattered. No one claimed them as their own, to my knowledge, but it would've been nice if I had been given credit as the photographer.

 

[Trail Images]

If you post images on ANY site they're subjected to being taken. I have no idea how many I've had taken over the years beyond three I saw years back. All three had my copyright watermark on them but those are easy enough to remove in PS. However, I found those by just a mere search as I have my copyright info embedded in the images too. The only one that I got nasty about was a lady was downloading images and then posting them for resale as greeting cards on her site. I sent her an email and she removed mine. With "up-resolution" software these days I'm sure it's open warfare.

 

[Molli]

The photos/prints I've made which I've liked most or would like suggestions to improve upon are of children. They're not my children, ergo, not my call to put them online.

I have had my personal website scraped on numerous occasions years ago and I can't say I was happy about that. It's not at all about an inflated sense of importance; it was a complete incomprehension of WHY someone would want to pass off another's personal experiences as their own.

Photographically, I've had a photo published in a local newspaper without any sort of permission or credit given. As it was a blimmin' awful reproduction, I'm just as happy NOT to have had my name attached to it.

Returning to visual creativity, I've read numerous threads here from professional photographers griping about the decline in "quality" uploads here on APUG/Photrio - given that I'm not a visual person, those comments and the accompanying derision also put me off making use of the gallery here, even though I've long held a subscription to make use of it.

 

[michr]

I've encountered camera club members who do the same thing. I see lots of glaring copyright notices over the images, or tiny thumbnail versions which lack enough detail to be compelling. I speculate the source of the behavior is because of two factors, they think the images are worth something, and that having them "stolen" is the worst thing that can happen to them. When in fact, images (my own included) are mostly worthless, and having them ignored is worse. I think there's a bit of a desire in the back of many amateur's minds that photography could be a budding career or pay a little money on the side at least. Leaving off the copyright notices undermines that objective, otherwise how would they get discovered?

 

[blockend]

In just a few years we've moved from an analogue world to a digital one. In film days the owner of the negative held the key to each subsequent print. Now anyone can download code and make a copy. People are still coming to terms with that reality. Pre-millennium photographers made a steady profit supplying back copies and ownership of the negative was as good as copyright - not literally but few people have the resources or willpower to fight custody through the courts for years.

David Hurn, one of the photojournalists behind the Newport documentary photography course, was in the habit of asking for a print swap from all the famous photographers he came across. Most said yes, and he gained a huge archive of fine prints from photographic greats. Some were extremely valuable, like the migrant mother Lange shot worth over 50k. To his great credit he donated his collection to the Museum of Wales instead of cashing in.

 

[removed account4]

what you wrote is true for commercial photographers, not weekend warriors. i would guess that 99.99999% of the images
posted on this webstie ( and probbly 99.99999% of the other "peer review" photo websites don't have anything of commercial value.
if someone wants to assure their images aren't going to be harvested .. they should make them small and "save for the web"
so if/when they are harvested they will be useless. someone wants an image they will still get / use it, but a 2x2cm print is kind of useless

 

[blockend]

if someone wants to assure their images aren't going to be harvested .. they should make them small and "save for the web"

Another way is to scan or re-photograph a print, rather than a data heavy negative scan. That gives a genuine viewer a good idea of the photographer's intentions, but is too lo-res for thieves to do anything with.

 

[Alan Johnson]

How do I link to my Flickr - post the link as signature?
It is a mix of film and digital - is that OK?

Yup, seems to work.

 

[pentaxuser]

Another way is to scan or re-photograph a print, rather than a data heavy negative scan. That gives a genuine viewer a good idea of the photographer's intentions, but is too lo-res for thieves to do anything with.

Interesting you should say this as that, in fact, is the rule on a U.K. site called FADU.

pentaxuser

 

[Eric Rose]

Whenever possible I scan a print from my analog negs. However sometimes it just isn't convenient so a neg scan has to suffice.

 

[etn]

It seems I have only run into amateurs who refuse to post images online because they are worried someone might download it.

There are software developers out there who publish under the GPL open source license some code which took months or even years to develop. Talk about intellectual property. So who am I to nitpick about a picture which took me 30 seconds to make and 10 minutes to develop? (even less if it was digital)

I think photographers (particularly amateurs) should quit being paranoid about their „work“. One thing I viscerally HATE are the huge watermarks some guys put on their pics. I have the impression that film photographers are less obsessed about this indeed.

My 2 cents...

Etienne

(side question: is signing my post with my name similar to watermarking my pictures?? lol )

 

[BradS]

I will say that it is kinda a bummer to find somebody has linked one of my photos on their blog (for example) without even casually mentioning it to me or not giving photo credit on their blog.....


and on the other hand, it is kinda flattering that people use my photos on their blog so...meh, no biggie I guess.

 

[removedacct1]

Having your photos appropriated is NOT flattery.

http://joelrobison.com/when-imitation-stops-being-flattering/

The problem I often encounter in discussions of this nature is that the sentiment often expressed is something like: "I don't care if people steal my photos and use them, so you shouldn't care either". That's a poor premise. Every individual photographer gets to choose whether or not it matters if his/her work is appropriated and used in ways that do not conform to the person's intentions. For 15 years now I have had my plant photos* stolen from my blogs, forums and even Flickr by various nurseries around the world, and by eBay sellers. Although I am now retired from photography as a profession, I made photographs for a living some years ago. So unlike many of the more casual photographers, I see my work as having "monetary potential". So when nurseries steal my photos, erase the discreet copyright watermark, and use them to flog their wares online, they have literally stolen my commodity and offered me nothing in return, even though my photos are helping them make their income.
I have also had the experience of having a photo taken, and the copyright mark removed, and the perpetrator then rebrands the photo with their own copyright mark, making it look as though they took the photo!
So when people suggest to me that I shouldn't care when this happens, its irritating and gives me the impression that too many casual photographers think this shouldn't be important to other photographers. I hate to think that I need justify my reasons for wanting to defend my Intellectual Property Rights, which our legal system has made provisions for (DMCA). Feel free to throw your work out there and not care how your photos may be appropriated, but please don't suggest that it shouldn't matter to me.

*I curate a large collection of exotic and peculiar plants.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not a professional (photographer), not really even an amateur...just a hobbyist. I just assume that if it is posted on the web, it will be used without permission. I just don't care.

...but to answer your question, why are amateurs so paranoid? maybe, it isn't so much paranoia as it is an inflated sense of importance?

- 10,000

 

[Ko.Fe.]

They might be amateurs for someone who knows nothing but photography as prints and large screen views.
But those amateurs might have overgrown OP to know what under 1000pix is perfectly usable for online adds and video. HD included.
Actually, I know how to print from under 1000px image and print it good for cards, flyers and else.
So, who is amateur now?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you post images on ANY site they're subjected to being taken. I have no idea how many I've had taken over the years beyond three I saw years back. All three had my copyright watermark on them but those are easy enough to remove in PS. However, I found those by just a mere search as I have my copyright info embedded in the images too. The only one that I got nasty about was a lady was downloading images and then posting them for resale as greeting cards on her site. I sent her an email and she removed mine. With "up-resolution" software these days I'm sure it's open warfare.

I agree.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I own the photograph and I have the right to give prints to those I choose. I have traded matted, framed prints for goods and services. I have also had to have someone prosecuted for downloading my photographs and selling them for a profit. I would rather not bother with going after such scum, so I do not put out my work to be targets.

 

[removedacct1]

Both paranoia and an inflated sense of importance.

It is a disservice to this community to suggest that those who care about their work and make a modest effort to protect it from thievery are somehow egotists with emotional disorders.