Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

From: "P. J. Alling" How is copyrighting a picture like daring someone to hit you? How is seeking redress for damages entrapment as you seem to be suggesting? I suggested that while it might not be a good source of reliable source of income it would be poetic if you /could/ derive income from

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 11/25/2010 12:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: "P. J. Alling" On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote: >>> "Significant income from those who choose to violate"? >>> >>> Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as >>> providing a reliable revenue stream from phot

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

From: "P. J. Alling" On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote: >>> "Significant income from those who choose to violate"? >>> >>> Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as >>> providing a reliable revenue stream from photography. >> >> But, it would be poetic. > > P

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote: "Significant income from those who choose to violate"? Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as providing a reliable revenue stream from photography. But, it would be poetic. Perhaps, if one wants to lower themselves to t

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

"Significant income from those who choose to violate"? Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as providing a reliable revenue stream from photography. But, it would be poetic. Perhaps, if one wants to lower themselves to the same level as the thief. I guess it's the

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 11/24/2010 9:02 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: CheekyGeek On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact that people are clueless

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

From: CheekyGeek On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact that people are clueless about copyright? All of the above. The la

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

From: Rob Studdert On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W wrote: > it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright. > Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge > there is no need to register copyright over here. The original author of the

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

From: Mark Roberts John Francis wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office, >> you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court. > >That's not my understanding. > >If you don't regis

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

I have got some money in a couple of cases and it was a lot of work arguing, but the relevant question is different: would I get any richer if I had my name all over the photographs? I don´t think so. I do think less people would look at them if the signature annoyed them. DagT http://www.thra

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

And Dag, Are you a rich man collecting from all those who have infringed on your copywrite? I'll bet you don't even work any more because of all the income... :-) Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, DagT wrote: > Den 20. nov. 2010 kl. 22.51 skrev Jaume Lahuerta: > >> - Mensaje

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Den 20. nov. 2010 kl. 22.51 skrev Jaume Lahuerta: > - Mensaje original > >> De: Miserere >>> >> Wow Darren, I never thought my (c) would annoy you so much :-( >> >> I've just finished reading through the thread and am surprised at how >> angry you sound. >> >> I'll comment later

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

- Mensaje original > De: Miserere > > On 19 November 2010 13:11, CheekyGeek wrote: > > A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" > > copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even > > more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Bob W wrote: gabby annie is back! Welcome back! Take my advice: B thank you!... but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff the link means Gab On !! oh no - I have been

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 19 November 2010 13:11, CheekyGeek wrote: > A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" > copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even > more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I > see the "C" to stand for "Clueless" r

RE: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

> >>gabby annie is back! > >> > >> > > > >Welcome back! > > > >Take my advice: > > > > > >B > > > > > > > > > thank you!... > but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff the link means Gab On !! ... oh wait

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Bob W wrote: [...] gabby annie is back! Welcome back! Take my advice: B thank you!... but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff ... oh wait.. the "getty (c)" -- too bright.. but the

RE: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

[...] > > gabby annie is back! Welcome back! Take my advice: B -- 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 abo

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

CheekyGeek wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact that people are clueless about copyright? All of the abo

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

mboi -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdm

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about > the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact > that people are clueless about copyright? All of the above. The law of copyrig

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 11/19/2010 8:11 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the "C" to stand for "Clueless" rather than

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 11/19/2010 11:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office, you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court. An interesting, yet probably tangential though here. What if I, being a non-American, "borrow" your work (though I know y

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

CheekyGeek wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> I make all my images available under Creative Commons >> Attribution/Non-Commercial/No-Derivatives license. Anyone is free to >> use them for non-profit purposes. I think this is just an >> acknowledgement of the reality

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

ing the > owner. > > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > > > -Original Message- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > CheekyGeek > Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2010 4:11 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: A sm

RE: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Subject: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks. A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the "C" to st

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W wrote: > it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright. > Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge > there is no need to register copyright over here. The original author of the > work is the copyright

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W wrote: > it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright. > Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge > there is no need to register copyright over here. The original author of the > work is the copyright

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Ya, I'm on double secret probation too! So I can't say any more. :-) I've seen your work, I'm sure that your figure's plenty large. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: >> It is a close relative that educ

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Ya, I'm on double secret probation too! So I can't say any more. :-) Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: > It is a close relative that educated me on this subject. He's > out-earning my annual salary with this revenue stream alone. I'm just > getting started...but

RE: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

> >I went to a talk once by Philip Jones-Griffiths, Magnum photographer > >famous for his book Vietnam, Inc. The film Apocalypse Now! ripped the > >book of quite comprehensively. In particular, there is a scene where a > >VC soldier is dying in the arms of some GI, having fought on with his > >guts

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 20 November 2010 08:59, Mark Roberts wrote: > Funny, but I disagree; I think they would have no fewer paying > customers if they didn't watermark their images (the people who *do* > pay are commercial users who understand the law and are in business > partly because of the protections they get

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 2010-11-19 14:05 , CheekyGeek wrote: While it may be counter-intuitive, Copyright-smart Photographers' feeling aren't hurt when people steal their work because they are going to nail a good percentage of them. A good enough percentage that they don't have to catch them all. okay, please desc

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > I make all my images available under Creative Commons > Attribution/Non-Commercial/No-Derivatives license. Anyone is free to > use them for non-profit purposes. I think this is just an > acknowledgement of the reality you described. I waterma

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

I just found the SAMP Copyright tutorial is online *and* viewable by non-members: http://asmp.org/tutorials/copyright-overview.html -- 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 a

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 20 November 2010 08:58, steve harley wrote: > On 2010-11-19 14:45 , Rob Studdert wrote: >> >> Realistically you have to assume that if you place an image in the >> public domain it will be copied regardless of the laws governing >> copyright and the cost of utilizing the laws protecting copyrig

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

It is a close relative that educated me on this subject. He's out-earning my annual salary with this revenue stream alone. I'm just getting started...but I wouldn't share figures or names, regardless (his or mine). : ) Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bob Sullivan w

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Rob Studdert wrote: >Whatever the legal arguments I'd bet that very few stock image library >sites would prosper if they didn't apply obscuring copyright >watermarks (which nearly all do). Funny, but I disagree; I think they would have no fewer paying customers if they didn't watermark their imag

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 2010-11-19 14:45 , Rob Studdert wrote: Realistically you have to assume that if you place an image in the public domain it will be copied regardless of the laws governing copyright and the cost of utilizing the laws protecting copyright might well negate their worth. i suspect you didn't mea

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

So tell us how much you've collected and from who... :-) Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: > Well, I can assure you it goes well beyond theory, and that it is > anything but "impractical", but I see no benefit to myself in doing > any further convincing on the s

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > CheekyGeek wrote: > >>there are specific ADDITIONAL penalties that >>the infringer puts themself in line for if they (for example) remove >>or crop out your copyright notice on their use of the infringed image. >>More leverage for your side. >

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 20 November 2010 08:31, CheekyGeek wrote: > Perhaps now that Mark has said it some will stop their inadequate arguments. > : ) Whatever the legal arguments I'd bet that very few stock image library sites would prosper if they didn't apply obscuring copyright watermarks (which nearly all do).

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

CheekyGeek wrote: >there are specific ADDITIONAL penalties that >the infringer puts themself in line for if they (for example) remove >or crop out your copyright notice on their use of the infringed image. >More leverage for your side. Oh yes indeed. Adding a copyright mark isn't necessary or suf

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Bob W wrote: >I went to a talk once by Philip Jones-Griffiths, Magnum photographer famous >for his book Vietnam, Inc. The film Apocalypse Now! ripped the book of quite >comprehensively. In particular, there is a scene where a VC soldier is dying >in the arms of some GI, having fought on with his g

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

John Francis wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office, >> you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court. > >That's not my understanding. > >If you don't register the copyright, you

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > > But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office, > you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court. That's not my understanding. If you don't register the copyright, you can't have an action brought

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > That's pretty much how I work things. > > A few weeks ago I attended a seminar on copyright held by the American > Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), so let's clear up a few > misconceptions about copyright that have been promulgated in t

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Larry Colen wrote: >There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people. > >At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a smoking >hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts. > >First of all, in theory, theory and practice are the same. It is legally and >morally wro

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 2010-11-19 15:21, David Parsons wrote: Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying for your legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything is on your side does not mean that you have any chance in hell of actually winning. And even if you win, the ju

RE: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

> Okay, say Microsoft (for whatever reason) decides to infringe on your > copyright and use it. > > Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying for your > legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything is on your side > does not mean that you have any chanc

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:45 -0800, "Larry Colen" wrote: > > There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people. > > At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a > smoking hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts. > > First of all, in theory, theory and practice ar

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On 2010-11-19 13:11, CheekyGeek wrote: Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the "C" to stand for "Clueless" rather than "Copyright". I would suggest that people who do this do not truly understand the concept of copyright. Only the smallest and most unobtrusive copyright mark is nee

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Infringers enrich Copyright-smart Photographers. Google & Flickr (along with the rest of the internet) make infringing simple. That's good for Copyright-smart Photographers. They also make catching infringers pretty simple, because most of them are clueless. While it may be counter-intuitive, Copyr

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people. At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a smoking hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts. First of all, in theory, theory and practice are the same. It is legally and morally wrong to duplicate and use co

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Well, I can assure you it goes well beyond theory, and that it is anything but "impractical", but I see no benefit to myself in doing any further convincing on the subject. Closed minds are a powerful thing. Suffice it to say that this thread is (empirically) the most financially invaluable (and po

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Okay, say Microsoft (for whatever reason) decides to infringe on your copyright and use it. Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying for your legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything is on your side does not mean that you have any chance in hell of

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

Darren, That all sounds good in theory, I trust what Dave Brooks has to say about it in practice. Collecting is very impractical... Don't put anything on the WWW you aren't willing to give away. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM, David Parsons wrote: > While you are technically correct, filing a copyright lawsuit is > ridiculously expensive and takes years in court to pursue.  And while > you can get statutory damages if you promptly file for registration, > if someone infringes on your c

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: > > I would suggest that people who do this do not truly understand the > concept of copyright. Only the smallest and most unobtrusive copyright > mark is needed to fulfill the legal obligation of notification/claim > as seen on the work itself.

Re: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

I used to put a big 'ol copyright statement on my thumbs to deter theft, but all they did was take the 640x480 thumbs, blow them up to 8x10 and print them out, with the copyright. Used to see them all over the horse show venues at the stalls. Dave On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM, CheekyGeek wro

A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.

A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the "C" to stand for "Clueless" rather than "Copyright". I would suggest that people w