Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Addition Of "the" Watermark On Your Photo's.  
User currently offlineDutchOps From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6546 times:

Just read the post from Johan regarding the option to add a visible watermark on your photo's. Was wondering which one of you is considering doing this. I already uploaded some pictures without the watermark since I think it takes away part of the fun you and others have when viewing nice clean shots...

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

Personally I won't be adding watermarks to my images BUT it is good to have the option to add them.

Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3992 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6509 times:

Quoting Jid (Reply 1):
Personally I won't be adding watermarks to my images BUT it is good to have the option to add them.

Me neither. I agree with what Jid said above.

Kas


User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6498 times:

- not using watermarks on the pics.
- not allowing people to comment on my photos.
- no pics for sale via link.

 duck   box 

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineDutchOps From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6461 times:

I'm still reviewing the photo comment feature... Not sure whether to turn it of or not. Guess Robin isn't very happy about them all...  Smile

User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6451 times:

Quoting DutchOps (Reply 4):
Guess Robin isn't very happy about them all...

well, I dont like the size of the watermark, I think its way to big.
I really dont care, what other people think of my photos, especially as I dont see the real name behind the commentator.
On the salelink, I think, if somebody wants a pic that bad, he can send me an email ....

overall, I think Johann has done a great job with these new additions in terms of looking after his users, who wanted all this features.

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineErwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6443 times:

I decided to give the comments feature a try.

The watermarks are turned off. Altough a good function for some of us, I just want visitors to enjoy my photography without watermarks.

Kind regards,
Erwin



My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6443 times:

I don't know if I would feel differently if it was the photographers name as the watermark instead of airliners.net. as it is it just seams although your disowning your photo.

Personal feelings anyway


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

I hope for Johan that the use of this new feature will be very limited.
As far as I know there are about 10.000 photographers showing off at this place but 100.000 visitors a day just wandering around and probably looking for a nice wallpaper or so.
How many of those 100.000 will keep on doing so if they find a watermark on every picture they like ?

In other words.......... I won't use it.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

No, I wont use it, for pretty much the same reasons as above.

User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

As I've said in other threads, I will not use it. I spend too much time trying to produce the best photos possible to ruin them with a watermark.


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineDutchOps From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

The idea of a watermark isn't that bad I think. I a short while maybe Johan will implement a feature so you can change the size of the mark an put it anywhere in your photo.

User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6282 times:

UNSAFE SEX.....

Now that I have your attention.
When a photographer puts a unique or beautiful or well done photograph on a.net without a watermark it is like having unsafe, unprotected sex...
Hear me out and I don't want to minimize the extreme health dangers of what I am "tonque in cheek" comparing....
Alright, YES, I give away some photos to charity "angel flights" "lifeguard flights" and I allow a dad to "screensave" my work for his son..and I allow some flight sims to use......ok.....so what does that mean.
This option that Johan has devised seems excellent. I will only use it for 4 of my 190 photos. Any of you have photos that are in the "editor's choice" or "all time popular" that is where the pics will be stolen from mostly....Everyone else with an a.net membership can view them without a watermark....WHAT's the PROBLEM???
After "googling" my name and a.net photoid numbers etc, I learned, this month, that 5 companies were using my photos on their website. One was a fortune 500 company with big bucks...The first call I made I settled for $150.00.
The second call I made was a start up company who was having money problems and I allowed her to keep my photo up there for free. The thirs call I made I asked the person to take it down because he could not accept giving me MY FAIR DUE. The last call I made I settled (without a lawyer) for a VERY good sum of money (NOT a ridiculous amount) but a gentleman like way...and, guess what?, they want to use other photos of mine. This is how it works. BIG companies come here because OUR work IS the BEST.....!!!!!AGAIN, if a pilot calls and says it was his last flight before retiring (or something like that) of course, I give away free to my aviation friend...BUT, people here have to stop these $25.00 sales to big aviation companies just so that they can get a photo credit and pat on the back....

Mark G


User currently offlineJspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6275 times:

I won't be using the watermark. I think my photos aren't some of the highest quality ones on the site, so I don't think I have much to worry about with someone stealing them.

Jason


User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6260 times:

I will not be one to use the watermark either. It is nice to have for those who want it though. I don't think I have shots popular enough for anyone to notice. I have a sold a couple to some companies that have contacted but I have not had to hunt anyone down. BTW...how does one google their photo IDs anyway? I would like to take a look. Thanks!

Danny



Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlinePipoA380 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1594 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6253 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I won't be using it either. As it was said in other posts, this was asked by a minority, and will be used by a minority.


It's not about AIRBUS. it's not about BOEING. It's all about the beauty of FLYING.
User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

Personally, I'd like to know the status/acceptence on "personal" watermarks on a.net after this "bold venture." In the past, IIRC, personal watermarks were discouraged, as they could be deemed as distracting. But as any "good Republican" believes that government solutions can lead to more problems. What I'm asking is that if photographer JP Public believes he can create a "better" watermark, regardless of size and position, is (s)he discouraged from uploading a personal watermark?

User currently offlineNoelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6134 times:

Johan,

Many people have asked this without an answer - I will ask again.

Will there be any way of searching for only photos without the watermark, or at the very least a way of seeing whether they have a watermark before we click?

Thanks.


User currently offlineAnder From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

IMHO the watermark spoils the picture greatly, the result being that pictures with a watermark are unatractive to me, even if the picture is very good. Therefore I will not add the Airliners watermark to my photos, as I see it very disturbing. I respect people who do it, but my main purpose here is to share, not to sell. Of course I don't want anybody to steal my photos, but I prefer to assume the risk in order for people to enjoy my photos fully.

As for the comments, I don't really care. It's nice to have some positive input from time to time, and the feature really doesn't bother me.

Ander.



Born to tri.
User currently offlineAIHTOURS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5987 times:

Johan,

I feel that the Watermark option would be favoured by more of us if our names were on the watermark. Our names are at the bottom, but so is Airliners.net.

It doesn't have to be big, just our names underneath "Airliners.net" would be fine.

I hope you consider this, as, although the Photo is hosted on Airliners.net, the Photo was afterall taken by the Photographer.

Regardless, I am happy enough in the knowledge you find the safety or our images important, by providing us with a watermark option, and I thankyou for your recent improvements to the site.

Thankyou for your time,
Ryan

[Edited 2005-09-06 21:40:47]

User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

It's horrible, and most of the shots I've seen with it have it placed away from the actual aircraft, therefore defeating the whole point in having it there in the first place, and just making the shot look a mess.

No, I'm not a fan  Smile

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

Quoting AIHTOURS (Reply 19):
I hope you consider this, as, although the Photo is hosted on Airliners.net, the Photo was afterall taken by the Photographer.

A watermark does not have to be the photographer's name. Usually it is just something like "PROOF" or "SAMPLE", etc. so that it will be visible if copied. If the copyright statement has your name or certified (registered) business name you're covered. If you use stuff like "MileHighImages" or "FloridaPhotographers" etc.,(all ficticious of course) and you don't have that name registered, you may have issues in court.

It is a great option to have available, I agree.


User currently offlineAIHTOURS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5954 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 20):
most of the shots I've seen with it have it placed away from the actual aircraft, therefore defeating the whole point in having it there in the first place

Yep, it doesn't quite fill the objective if the watermark is in the sky does it!

Jeff, I never knew that! I agree with, like you say, the option being there. It is there if you feel you would like to use it. Which provides some assurance to many people I would imagine when uploading their Photographs to the site.

Thankyou for clearing that up, I am now thinking that we may be better off leaving the watermark as it is currently.

On the grounds of preference, I am just as happy viewing a Photo with a Watermark on it as one without. Afterall, the Photos safety is just as important as our viewing. The only time it comes to preferance, is when it is time to upload my own Photos.

Thanks,
Ryan

[Edited 2005-09-06 22:11:23]

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I fully understand the argument for the watermark - there was one occasion when I was upset to find that a fellow A.net member had used one of my photos on his website without seeking my permission. However, I'm not a fan of watermarks on this site. Also, if I am honest, I have to recognise I am not one of the Mark Garfinkel's of the aviation photography world and so I probably would not have much need to protect my own images. Ideally it is probably true to say that I would like to have my cake and eat it - to feel my photos are secure but also to be able to view them and others untainted by the watermark.

For me the website is about presenting and viewing photography, and the watermark simply detracts from the viewing experience. I shall not be taking up the option. Just as an aside I would like to see the option to view photos 'unwatermarked' extended to all A.net members too.

Paul


User currently offlineTommy Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 912 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 20):
most of the shots I've seen with it have it placed away from the actual aircraft, therefore defeating the whole point in having it there in the first place

Not all true.

In fact it would stop magazines from stealing that image and use it in print.
I have cases where my photos were stolen from here and printed in an airport magazine. They would have chosen other photos if the sky (or part of aircraft) was covered with this thin watermark.

So, it does serve a purpose even if it is in the sky.


Tommy Mogren



Flightdeck Action - Cockpit Videos on Blu-ray and DVD - Flights In The Cockpit- You're Invited!
25 DC10Tim : Yes but if it's in the sky it is a lot easier to either clone out or to crop out. As far as I'm concerned a faint watermark across the sky is not much
26 Cruiser : You should have the option to either turn on the watermark, or turn it off after the picture has been uploaded. I uploaded a shot with a watermark, an
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...
Which Of The Two Is Best On Your Screen? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 08:10:20 by Frippe
Do Not Cheat By Changing The Date On Your Uploads! posted Mon Aug 28 2006 00:58:53 by AndyHunt
Your Thoughts On This Photo - And Viewer Behaviour posted Fri May 26 2006 18:16:46 by Psych
Your Advice On This Photo posted Wed Apr 19 2006 13:16:50 by Coninpa
What Is The Meaning Of "motive" Rejection? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 09:35:44 by Walter2222
Suggestions Of "motiv" Cabin Shot? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 18:19:04 by MartinairYYZ
Which Of Your Photo's Has Had Most Exposure? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 20:22:12 by 9VSPO
Your Opinion On This Photo Please :) posted Tue Jul 12 2005 17:41:33 by MartinairYYZ
Another Round Of "!#$% Baddark?" posted Thu Jun 16 2005 23:15:06 by UA777222
Your Input Please On A Hanger Photo posted Fri Jun 3 2005 05:04:21 by UA777222