Some general thoughts on the subject:
Watermarks may be useful, but it's not foolproof.
They're supposed to provide some proof of ownership, and perhaps security.
In digital work the origin (closely related to ownership) may be next to impossible to
prove.
Whereas with chemical photography, you've got an emulsion on file (neg/pos/reversal).
That's a tangible proof of ownership, providing a legal basis and starting point.
A watermark then seems a general waste of time.
I'd recommend only displaying low- or medium-res images that are less-worth stealing
or modifying.
Save the good stuff for the paying customer and don't make it too available.
Collin
--
---------------------------
"Edith Keiler must die."
-- Spock, 1930
--
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
