I've found that unauthorized use of my images has only helped me gain
exposure. Frequently the unauthorized user provides at least a credit.
I think that making images small and marred by copyright notices only
hurts one' promotional efforts in the long run. But that's just my
opinion. I do demand payment if one of my images appears in a medium
that is obviously part of a commercial venture, but that's rare. Most
pilfered images appear only in personal and non-profit sites or are
used merely for comping. I also should point out that when an image is
pilfered for ad comping purposes, it may well be purchased later. But
if it's so small or disfigured that it can't be used for comping, the
art director will pass it up.
Here's an example of an unauthorized use of one of my photos that I
just discovered. Not it has a credit. I didn't complain. I just smiled:
http://koah.over-blog.com/article-17859115.html
By the way, does anyone know what this site is all about? I assume the
language is French?
Paul
On Dec 10, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
Howdy, folks,
I'm in the process of trying to automate the end-phase of my photo
workflow. That is, the portion after I've pulled the image into
Photoshop [Elements] or something and gotten it cropped and adjusted
"just so".
And that's gotten me to thinking relatively deeply about things that
may not yet admit deep thinking. So, I'm going to throw some ideas
out to the "PDML At Large" and see what comes back.
I want to provide myself some recourse against unauthorized
reproduction. So I'm thinking about several technologies and
processes to do that. In the past, my "attempts" have largely
centered around providing images on the web that are too small (in
resolution terms) to be of any real use outside the "Webisphere",
and not caring about uses within that environment.
I'm still planning to pursue that same strategy for the stuff I make
available to the world at large. Nothing more than, say, 800x600
pixels, for example. Put my copyright in the EXIF/IPTC metadata.
"Brand" a watermark visually into the image. Stuff like that.
But now it's looking like I can actually make some money from at
least some of my photographic endeavors. So, I want to afford
myself some more, not really protection, but recourse, ass coverage,
whatever. Increase my ability to "prove" that I originally created
an image, after that image has been cropped, resized, and otherwise
mangled.
So I'm thinking about several aspects of deterring unauthorized use.
Phase one is to "brand" the images with a low-contrast modification
that imposes a notice visibly on the image, and keep the published
resolution "impractically" low. So, just how "visible" is too much
in a watermark? We're only talking about an 800x600 image, after
all. Does anyone have any experience with the "pay-to-play" image
watermarking services?
I'm also thinking about embedding additional data via steganography.
Does anyone have any pointers or information about creating a
"proper" stegano-embeddable image that's not going to either detract
from the top-level image or be "too detectable"? Should I think
about multiple stegs, with a different data set each time? Just how
resilient are stegs in the face of image modifications like crops,
resizes, and replacement of the "brand"?
I'm also thinking about "shaving" every published image so that none
of them have the outside 1-10% of the image. Theoretically, if I
suspect unauthorized use, this should help me prove original
ownership. But, when do I shave them? Immediately after capture?
Immediately prior to publishing a particular rendering? Several
times in the middle of the workflow?
Discuss ...
:-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
