DutchOps From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4228 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...
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4133 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.
Gary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4125 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.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4123 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
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4100 times:
No, I wont use it, for pretty much the same reasons as above.
DutchOps From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4009 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.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 46 Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3964 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....
Jspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3957 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.
Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3942 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!
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months ago) and read 3828 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?
Noelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3816 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?
Ander From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3779 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.
AIHTOURS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3669 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.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3661 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.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3652 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.
AIHTOURS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3636 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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
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.
Tommy Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 911 posts, RR: 24 Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3538 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
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1198 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 911 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
