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?
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5684 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.
Fleitao From Portugal, joined Feb 2005, 30 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5633 times:
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 ?
JetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3094 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5622 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.
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5510 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5621 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.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1323 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5614 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.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5534 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?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5489 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.
United737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5474 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.
Mx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 835 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5416 times:
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.
All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
AviatorTJ From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1838 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5411 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:
AirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5390 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...