Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Watermark Option - Yes Or No?  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5495 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

This is a continuation of:
Watermarks....protecting Our Images Against Theft (by AKE0404AR Jun 2 2005 in Aviation Photography)

You must read that before you can post a comment here.

I am very unsure how to proceed with this. Are most of you for or against a watermark option? If you're for a watermark option, should it be in a corner like in Denis example or should it cover the middle of the image? I agree Denis example looks good but will it have any real effect?

Thanks,
Johan


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Well im not a big fan of watermarks it puts me off looking at the image.
But that's only my 2c worth.
And yes i have read the thread
Johan how about making it an option for each photog ?
We can tick a box the same way as we do for the photo sales on uploading.
If a photog decides he wants a watermark he can have an Anet watermark from side to side on his large version.

[Edited 2005-07-01 00:42:18]


On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineCallMeCapt From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 496 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5474 times:

I wouldn't mind an airliners.net watermark. Not sure what kind of an impact it would have on the sites popularity though. Go with the majority, I guess.


Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
User currently offlineUnited737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5453 times:

Ughh, any kind of watermark is awful. The copyright bar is enough. What is the difference to stop people from using it?

Please don't tell me there is not a way to disable right click and the little save button (even in firefox).


User currently offlineFleitao From Portugal, joined Feb 2005, 30 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5428 times:

Hi all,

I don't like the watermarks as an idea in general, but:

Dennis's proposal was very imaginative and might be a good solution if that's the path to follow.
I can agree with the arguments that it would bring lots of photos that those great guys don't want to show so they don't get ripped off. I just don't know whether it is a relevant number, but we'll have to believe it is.
If it is given a choice by photographer or even by photo (in some kind of administration page, or something like that), i guess that everybody would be happy, so why not ?

Regards



An Airbus is not a Playstation with wings.
User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3084 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5417 times:

Although I do not really prefer a watermark, I realize many do, and therefore a decision must be made. I do not believe that it should be an option though. Either every photo has it, or not. What is the point of it if the thief can just abuse a similar photo that does not have the watermark? If we do use one, then I support Denis' idea, a small logo in one of the corners with the photographers name.

As for seeing the non-watermark version, I think it would be rather trashy to only allow FC members to view it. It reminds me of those joker computer desktop background websites, where one must pay to see the full version. That is not what Airliners.net is about.

In my opinion, if we want to make a decision, it must be one that every A.net member/viewer must abide by. Either every photo has the watermark, or not. Either every person sees the unedited version, or not.

I also agree that a formal poll must be conducted, rather then just a few opinions in the forums.


Chris

[Edited 2005-07-01 01:11:46]


Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Even though I've had images used straight from the site (saves me a lot of time to find the CD and email the image to them), I say yes to the watermark. In the end it will save us the headaches of having to deal with stolen photos.

Justin


User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1284 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

As I've said before in the other thread, I'm against the idea of a watermark. Airliners.net has always been about the highest quality aviation photos, and a watermark detracts from that.

Having photos stolen is a risk inherent in posting them on the internet. I understand the hard work every photographer here puts into their photos, but at the end of the day there are worse things than having a photo you took used without permission.

IF the majority decides that they want a watermark, and again I hope that doesn't happen, please do make it an option for the photographer.

Thanks for listening to my two cents worth.

A346Dude



You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

Because I could care less if someone steals my photos I am against the watermark feature.

User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3994 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5378 times:

I'm against a watermark on our photos. I think It'll make the photos look bad and that fewer people will view them.

User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

I'm against any new watermark as it will likely harm a.net. The small watermark proposed by Denis is basically already possible. Looks good if it's done right:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Watt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw



User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

Quoting TS (Reply 10):
The small watermark proposed by Denis is basically already possible. Looks good if it's done right:

I didn't see anything pertaing to photographers who have already copyrighted their images on a.net in the other thread, and if I missed it this point needs to be brought up again. To me it seems pretty stupid to have 2 copyrights/watermarks on these images. Will the images such as the 2 above have to be reuploaded so that only the a.net watermark is on the image?


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

From the photo usage requirements:

"The digital photos on this site are licensed to Airliners.net. They are equipped with a footer with copyright and license information and also carry an invisible watermark."

I've never understood the invisible watermark feature. When does it become "visible", if at all?

I'd like to see a "trial" watermark before making a decision.

Thx Johan.


User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My vote is YES.

Make it an option for the photographer and that thing about the FC members not seeing the Water Mark sounds 0K too.

Juan APM



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineFutureUApilot From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1365 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5294 times:

Sorry, but my vote is NO! I think it would reduse the traffic to the site...

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 12):

I'd like to see a "trial" watermark before making a decision.

Johan has set up a trial thingie in the other thread.

-Sam



The Pilot is the highest form of life on Earth!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5284 times:

I'm for the watermark, and I think it should be visible (transparent) across the entire middle of the image. Making it smaller will only allow people to clone it out. If someone wants an marked image, they need to contact the photographer. simple, effective.

User currently offlineUnited737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5269 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Reply 13):
FC members not seeing the Water Mark sounds 0K too.

What is the point then? Someone signs up for one month of FC and have all the images they want... it totally defeats the purpose.

The two examples above, what is to keep people from hacking those off and using them? All those do is distract from the images.

Here is an idea, why not put a completely transparent, second image over the existing image? Then, when a right click, save pictures as results in saving the transparent image rather than the actual picture.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

I support discret watermark idea. Vote for YES.

User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2820 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5258 times:

Im all for watermarks!

Let it be an option to those who want it!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineBlackbird1 From Germany, joined Mar 2002, 225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm enjoying watching aircraft pics....without any distractions like watermarks.

My vote is: NO!

Gerhard



I'd rather be flying!
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

I think the Airliners.net border at the bottom is sufficient for my images. I would not opt for any other watermark.

Thanks for polling us on the issue.
Gary Chambers
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineLindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5218 times:

My vote goes for watermark.

Rafal


User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5211 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United737522 (Reply 16):
Quoting Mx330 (Reply 13):
FC members not seeing the Water Mark sounds 0K too.

What is the point then? Someone signs up for one month of FC and have all the images they want... It totally defeats the purpose.

Right, got me there!

Quoting United737522 (Reply 16):
Here is an idea, why not put a completely transparent, second image over the existing image? Then, when a right click, save pictures as results in saving the transparent image rather than the actual picture.

Sounds nice but is it possible to do that?

A Water Mark at the end of the day some guys like it and some others don't.
I think the decision should be up to the photographer, but Johan has the final word and I will stick to it. My vote is still YES.

Juan APM



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineAviatorTJ From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1838 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5206 times:

I prefer the option to watermark. The generator created by Johan would be the version I would like to see instead of Denis. http://www.airliners.net/static/delme.php Along with the airliners.net watermark, part of the option should include choices for location and transparency. Since it works different in each shot, the photographer can check the yes or no box for their watermark, then select a corner or center image from a dropdown, and then choose transparency.

Also, if a watermark is added to a photo, it should stay with a photo regardless of membership status. A three month membership for a clear photo would still be cheaper than getting a photo legitimately.

Regarding the disabling right click. Why in the hell would you want that? Don't you think people like using your photo as a desktop?

Just for kicks, here is an example of my watermark on my personal website:


and one designed for another site:


All my best-
TJ


User currently offlineAirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5185 times:

Uhhh, why was this website concocted in the first place? Certainly not as a venue to market YOUR PICTURES for profit. Additionally, it must be decided whether this watermark issue benefits the small minority of photographers that demand it vs. the health of ANet [and visitors] in general.

For those photogs that insist on a watermark, let them have it. Otherwise, leave the rest of us out of it...



Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
25 Crank : I'm against watermarks. My vote is: NO
26 Benoit9999 : My vote is : NO .............................................................................................................
27 GPHOTO : I personally vote No, for mine. As there is such a divergence of opinion between all the photographers, I think it will have to be an option you can s
28 INNflight : Would a smaller watermark ( also in the center of the photo, like the beta-one Johan posted in the other thread, just smaller! Not from the very left
29 Ghost77 : After 5 years since my first upload... I'm tired of seeing my pics stolen! BIG YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! Ricardo APM
30 Andy777 : My vote is no as well. My Southwest 737 picture I used on the test page looked like a Airliners.net logo jet and it really spoilt the picture. I hope
31 Post contains images StealthZ : My personal vote is NO, My personal web photos have a watermark (that is continually evolving) e.g but on A.net for me the Airliners title bar is suff
32 Lindy Field : Well, speaking as someone with just three images in the database but who as an editor has spent quite a lot of time looking at images in the db, I'm g
33 Post contains images Ghostbase : I am voting NO as well. We need to keep a sense of proportion over this issue. Of the 800,000 plus photos on the database realistically how many are a
34 Pixart : My personal vote is NO! But I think an option would be the best solution.
35 IL76 : Note me down as a "NO" please... For reasons I have mentioned in the other thread. Cheers, Eduard
36 LGW : Hi Johan/All, My vote is NO. Especially not one like Denis suggested or one in the middle. If we had to perhaps one like Garry Lewis or Gary Watt use
37 Willo : I am also voting "No" as I think it will detract from the quality of the pictures. I accept that by uploading my work to the internet and despite atte
38 Tommy Mogren : As I have made perfectly clear in the previous thread, I VOTE BIG YES. I think it should be optional, at upload time. I would prefer if we could get t
39 Scbriml : My gut reaction is to say NO. I feel it totally detracts from the image - I ran a number of mine through the test and was not happy with the look. I t
40 Malandan : I remain against the proposal but realistically, if it is an option at the time of upload and that I can, as a First Class member, continue to view al
41 Sulman : No. I think it's ugly. Cheers James
42 DerekF : I vote NO as well. There isn't much point in uploading high quality images then putting a watermark on the picture to ruin it again. Derek
43 Tameteora : I do NOT like the idea of watermarks at all. I have tried it for several of my photos, and I really hated it. Watermarking is basically the deliberate
44 Post contains images IL76 : Now that's a good idea! And since every picture will get a watermark 'tick' in the actual database, it would also be possible to mention next to the
45 DC10Tim : I think we might be onto something here guys! I personally am really against the idea, but I can understand why some people would want to have a wate
46 WhyWhyZed : I too am against the idea of getting a watermark on my images, and any other images. I enjoy all this as a hobby, a photo sale is only a minor incenti
47 US333 : My vote is NO, I think it's too much of a distraction -Kyle
48 Airplanepics : Big no from me. We all knew that theres a risk of people stealing out photos before uploading here. Its a risk you take.
49 AIHTOURS : I will have to say NO, and if there is a watermark, it should have the Photographers name, not just Airliners.net. and the large versions for First Cl
50 ChrisZRH : big YES. I would greatly appreciate a watermark like Johan posted. It's time to do something... chris
51 MartinairYYZ : I am all for watermarks.... a good one right in the middle of the image like on Corbis should be done.... make it selectable so that when uploading yo
52 TomTurner : Watermark option is unfortunate in my opinion. I will not opt for itself myself. And, I agree, as posted previously, that if there are two sets of ima
53 Birdy : Of course, I would like to see watermarks on A.net as an option. For those who are against this just think what is better to see some great shots of p
54 Post contains links Gary2880 : I'm afraid I cant really decide, how ever to take this as a recent example, DLKAPA's photo which was stolen by a news company http://www.airliners.net
55 TZ : Brilliantly said, and absolutely 100% in alignment with my thinking. Tamsin
56 Fallingeese : My biggest worry is that those of us who don't choose to watermark our images will have more stolen. Especially if there is a search option to not sho
57 DLKAPA : All I will say is that the watermark should be an "opt-in" option.
58 A346Dude : That sounds like a very good idea to me. Obviously it's not going to stop the worst offenders, but I think it will make people think twice before ste
59 Vzlet : If adopted, watermarks should be optional. (Screeners could, however, be given the capability to selectively place watermarks to cover dust spots, jag
60 AKE0404AR : Like Tommy Morgren, I think my standpoint is pretty clear. For all of you voting against the watermark feature, let me ask you this: A lot of photogra
61 AirNikon : ANet is NOT BHPhoto, NOT Corbis, NOT Photovault, NOT an online stock agency, nor was is it ever envisioned as such. If your main intention is to sell
62 A3204eva : As i said in the other thread, NO!!
63 INNflight : I am against the watermark, thought about that a long time, but in the end, a NO from me. WELL SAID! Perfectly correct!
64 JumboJim747 : Cant quote yet and has Been like this for a month now but can i say that the quote by AirNikon is one of the best i ever heard. The quote that INNflig
65 Mygind66 : My vote goes for a NO. A watermark kills the photo in my opinion. Cheers Enrique
66 An-225 : I am strongly against the watermark on my photos. It should be an opt-in option. Alex.
67 NonRevKing : It doesn't matter the motivation for creating this site, it's what this site has BECOME, like it or not. SOMETHING needs to be done! I don't think we
68 AirNikon : Brian, I cannot and will not dispute any of the points you have stated. However, the direction of this site is not our decision, nor certain at this p
69 Airlinelover : There is an option at the upload page to submit for photo sales whatever, right? Why not do the same for a watermark, and if you want it it will be au
70 AKE0404AR : thank you Brian, you hit the nail on the head!!!! that is exaclty the point which would be interesting to find out. In which direction is airliners.n
71 Post contains links Birdy : Saying this I am sure you did not read this thread: Watermark will be optional! Yes, A.net is not stock agency, but as Brian - SPOT THIS! said editor
72 Birdy : Vasco, I hope A.net can be something different for everyone but still of the same character. For enthusiast and viewers source of great images, for ph
73 StealthZ : A FREE way to market their photography! So to protect the profitability of these pro photographers we are being asked to compromise the pleasure and
74 Birdy : Chris I am talking here about compromise not perfect solution. In addition, remember that just small part of photos would be watermarked, because as
75 Sulman : No, you're right to say it, because it is relevant to the argument. This community does unfortunately possess a somewhat self-important quotient of m
76 Birdwatching : Isn't there any way of including a watermark that is completely invisible, bedded inside the jpg? I think I've heard of that.
77 Psych : I have read this thread with great interest. My bottom line is that I wish to have my photos hosted here, and look at others' photos, because this is
78 OD720 : I think some photographers are pure hobbiests and others take this a little more seriously. Can't blame anyone for their own approach to the matter. I
79 Eksath : I vote YES. It should be OPTIONAL...and those who dont want to participate are free and clear to pursue their ideals... As for the claim of the reduct
80 TS : I disagree. Professional means you make a living with your photos. To how many photographers does this apply here? 2, 3? Well, maybe 4 ... out of 12,
81 Noelg : Definately NO. As others have said, this is a hobbyist's site, not a money-generator. A move like this would definately detract from the quality of th
82 Eksath : Soon as you sell 1 picture, you have crossed the line. professional,semi-professional,fulltime,part-time are all academic arguments. if you have prof
83 Post contains links Tommy Mogren : AMEN. Well said. Absolutely. I don't see why so many have a problem with that. It is OPTIONAL Isn't there any way of including a watermark that is co
84 Beechcraft : Hi, first of all: Thank you Johan for considering my idea as an option and thanks to all of you who came up with an opinion about it. I said it before
85 JetTrader : Johan, I am NOT in favour of watermarks. I vote NO. But...if you choose to implement this for those who insist on it, maybe an option to "list only pi
86 Fallingeese : The problem with including something like "view only non-watermarked" photos is that the ones that aren't watermarked will be stolen even more. You ar
87 JetTrader : Fallingeese, FYI I have 926 pics in the database. I'm a photographer and I still vote NO. Granted the option to list only pics with no watermark could
88 Tameteora : Being the one that suggested this, I fail to see why this would increase non-watermarked theft. For non-watermarked photos nothing changes. They can
89 A346Dude : Well said, Aad.
90 Tameteora : Well spoken! And now some are also telling viewers to keep out of this discussion. Strange. What would the photographers and this site be without the
91 Lennymuir : For a few years in this forum, I've always supported the watermarking of uploaded images. Now, I'm overcome with apathy. I don't care anymore. I send
92 Jan Mogren : Expense? /JM
93 Fallingeese : Johan wouldn't have a site this size if it wasn't for the photographers. That is a fact that cannot be denied. For that reason we should have a voice.
94 TomTurner : Mark - If its an "opt in" program - that will protect unique images The Mogren Brothers, Brian Stevenson etc might have/be willing to share etc, what
95 Fallingeese : I don't want to be punished because I choose to protect my images, my property and my rights. That is what it boils down to.
96 Post contains images A346Dude : Mark, here's what I don't get. If that happened to me, I know exactly what I would do: send an invoice for triple the fair market price for the photo
97 F9Widebody : I think we (Johan) should contact Digimarc. Since this database is so huge, and the application would be so large, I think Digimarc may cut us a deal
98 Post contains images AndrewUber : I know I for one would contribute most (if not all) of my somewhat inaccessible income from airliners.net photo sales to have Digimarc protect my imag
99 FightingDingo : If there is a watermark it should be on all of the photos in the database. If there was an option to have it and some photographers had it on their ph
100 Tommy Mogren : It seems that photographers here who have had their photos stolen and abused somewhere, are the one who cares. Simply because we know how often it occ
101 Fallingeese : You can sure as hell bet that I handled it like that. I have plenty of experience from people stealing my photos. You might be naive and think that i
102 TACAA320 : The copyright bar is enough for me. Don't see an awful watermark necessary.
103 Rendezvous : As has been said previously, there are exceptionally high screening standards for this site now. The smallest imperfection sees a photo instantly reje
104 Tommy Mogren : Yes, and it is that perfect result that gets accepted, that we are interested in protecting. I really don't. The photo keeps it's aeshetic nature, AN
105 Ghost77 : Came from the store and saw a picture printed in a spanish av mag downloaded from a.net and printed without requesting for permission!! BIG YES!! Sure
106 EZEIZA : Don't know the value of my opinion, since I have no pics on the db (yet!), but as someone who originally was atracted to a.net because of the pics I w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BOI Tower. Yes Or No? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 07:57:03 by COIAH756CA
Nice B6 Photos... Yes Or No? posted Mon Jun 5 2006 01:15:59 by I530j
Yes Or No? posted Sat Jun 25 2005 15:10:39 by Kaddyuk
Polarizer Filter... Yes Or No? posted Wed Mar 3 2004 06:55:05 by Roots
New Feature - Yes Or No? posted Fri May 4 2001 05:51:43 by Cathay111
Clouds - Yes Or No posted Fri Mar 16 2001 10:12:07 by Granite
Canon 75-300, USM Or No? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 03:10:16 by Cadet57
Go Or No Go? Advice,please? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 02:53:11 by Eksath
Yes Or Baddouble posted Sat Apr 26 2003 00:45:53 by Joe pries
Pattern...or No Pattern...? posted Tue Jan 28 2003 11:15:02 by JetTrader