Brettdespain From United States of America, joined May 2005, 178 posts, RR: 11 Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4054 times:
All right everyone. Here's your chance to vent your feelings. Perhaps this topic has been discussed before. But, let me add my two cents worth and then I'll turn it over to all of you for your opinions.
After having one of my photos "lifted/stolen" from A.net and then published in a magazine, I have made the decision to watermark all of my photos. I try to put them in places that are more discreet, but after having put several watermarks in the sky I've become aware at how easy it is to photoshop those out.
So now I've started putting watermarks in areas of the photo that would be very difficult to erase. I try to put them in areas that won't detract from the photo, like this example of the watermark at the bottom of the image.
However, there are certain shots that don't lend themselves to having a watermark at the bottom or top because it would be too easy to just crop those areas out and "steal" the image. Hence I put the watermark in the middle of the image.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have these watermarks in my images at all, but experience has taught me that if I want to keep sharing these images with everyone, it's something I have to do to keep prying hands off. I'm more than happy to have everyone use my images for private use (screensavers, school projects etc.). But commercial use, always requires prior permission and adding a watermark is one of the few ways we can protect ourselves.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3023 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4014 times:
You are right- this has been discussed a lot. But always good to return to an important topic.
I have complete sympathy for the argument about protecting images, but my bottom line is that watermarks spoil the experience of viewing the image, wherever they are placed. A beautiful shot like yours of the contrail cannot look as good with anything added, however discreet. I recall viewing another shot recently that was - in my opinion - ruined by the watermark. But I can't recall which one it was just now - I just immediately closed the page after seeing it was watermarked.
I don't know what the answer is. I know First Class members get to see photos without the watermark - but if you are a determined thief there's nothing stopping anyone joining up to do that. I would argue that all participating photographers on the site should have that privilege - a benefit of sharing your work with the site - but then again the only time I am aware of a photo of mine being pinched, it was by another A.net member.
Personally I take the risk. What I would like to see would be evidence to potential thieves on the front page that, if discovered, they will be successfully prosecuted - by the site, not just the individual. But I don't think that is a viable reality.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 1): don't know what the answer is. I know First Class members get to see photos without the watermark - but if you are a determined thief there's nothing stopping anyone joining up to do that. I would argue that all participating photographers on the site should have that privilege - a benefit of sharing your work with the site - but then again the only time I am aware of a photo of mine being pinched, it was by another A.net member.
Sadly in its current incarnation the watermark is pointless. When the idea was originally proposed I was very much in favor of it. I don't use it on my images but I support those who do. However, now that it has been put in to effect, with it being invisible to First Class Members all it does is ruin the shot. It provides no protection as for a small fee payable to Airliners you can steal all of the shots that you want. I think that it should be re programmed so that the watermark is visible to all if the photographer selects to use it.
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2673 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3961 times:
That third shot is great!
I think photos such as the first two you posted, and 90% of the rest of the photos on this website fall into the category of a watermark not really mattering because if someone wants a picture of whatever it is, there are already several hundred (or thousand) out there that they can easily find. It probably doesn't matter.
The rarer pictures are really the only ones that need a watermark.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3961 times:
I've only watermarked one photo that's on here, and basically when doing so I decided to use the watermark for its purpose: anti-theft. I put the watermark in the most difficult to remove spot possible, and I made it quite visable as well. Unfortunately this often means partially covering the aircraft, but such is life when you don't want your photos lifted.
Blackhawk144 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
Well, after reading you're explaination, you do bring up good points, but I still think it wouldn't hurt to make FC members see watermarks. I mean, there really are determined theives who can only find a photo of a certain plane on here, and all they gotta do is just pay a measly $5.
Now what one person said in that thread intrigued me, because it did bring up a good point, and I would like to talk to you about this...
Isn't this scenerio your in a little convienent? I mean heres how I figure.
People see watermark, and dislike it: they pay $5
Premium members see watermark, and dislike it: they pay $5+ PLUS the additional $25 they spent
Theives buy a membership to get rid of the watermark: $5+
I don't think you want to make it so everyone sees it because that would result in you losing $10+ extra bucks...I mean theives pay, and photographers have their work stolen, and who gets the ultimate profit? The answer is you...but I don't mean any offense, I just want to point out that this seems a bit too convienent.
Although it would result in a loss of money, you will earn more respect from people if you make it visible to everyone. That would ensure that people would feel secure in your photos.
But I really hope you're not the "money's everything, who cares about the people" person.
VasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3887 times:
Lets not talk about $$. Money goes for supporting A.net and not just to Johan!
Why not have a proper poll just for the FC members to find out if a FC member really wants to see without the watermark. A FC member may just be interested in the Fit Screen or the Aviation news and maybe least bothered about the Watermark option.
I have one more suggestion...
Why not have the intensity of the watermark less (about two steps down) for a FC member??
Blackhawk144 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3879 times:
Quoting VasanthD (Reply 8): Why not have a proper poll just for the FC members to find out if a FC member really wants to see without the watermark. A FC member may just be interested in the Fit Screen or the Aviation news and maybe least bothered about the Watermark option.
NO! That would never work because there are more FC members who don't give a rats behind about photography, and don't want to see per the ones who think its fair...
Brettdespain From United States of America, joined May 2005, 178 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
All of your responses are good and go along way to illustrate the problems associated with try to display photographs on the net.
Does it bother me that F/C members get to see the image without the watermark? Yes and no.
Yes, because it takes away a layer of protection from the photographer.
No, because someone who is willing to pay a monthly fee to look at aircraft photos is usually crazy about airplanes, just like me, and spends all of his/her free time at the airport and doesn't have time to make money off of someone else's images! Also, I recognize the cost of keeping a site like this one going. Without this site, we all be forced into producing and maintaining our own web site. (BTW, my web site should be up this summer).
Another thing that no one yet has addressed is the amount of time it takes to get images on this site. The China air contrail shot that I posted above took 6 attempts to get past the screeners. When it finally did, it came with warning about "low quality".
Honest to Pete, I'd like to strangle the person that came up with that "quality" reason for rejection. Screeners, just say what you mean. If it's grainy, say so etc. "Quality" can mean so many things and yet nothing. You're left at square one again, how do you fix it? And when is someone going to recognize that shooting images through 1 to 2 inches of Plexiglas is very difficult? If you've ever spent much time in the cockpit you'll know what I'm taking about when I say that some windows are so "runny" that is almost impossible to get a good distortion free shot. I see that we have a new posting category "cockpit". Hopefully, when the screeners see this category, they'll remember about plexiglass distortion.
My point here is that after spending so much time trying to get an image on a.net, how ready would you be to send it out into cyber-space knowing that it could be lifted for a magazine? For now watermarks are my only answer. If you want to see an image without the watermark:
1. email me and I'll send you one for a screensaver
2. buy a print.
3. become a first class member.
By doing either one of the 3 above, you are supporting the photographer and this site, and after all, that is the point of having this site.
Someone said in another thread with the same subject, "If you don't want it used, don't post it." The point is, we do want it used, but not to line the pockets of someone else who took no effort what-so-ever other than to log on to the net. Private use is always free, commercial use demands a fee.
SoBe From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3750 times:
Fit Screen just enlarges the photo to fit your screen size though it still has a header at the top and your toolbar is still visible. Usually it creates an image that is of much lower quality than the Large image.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 43
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3635 times:
In general I have always been against the use of a watermark and so far I still refuse to use it.
- Many people worry about things they don't have to worry about.
When I see a huge watermark across a standard photo of a common aircraft taken at a common airport which accumulated 137 views in half a year I am thinking "man...... you should be glad if someone steals it"
- In my own experience the problem is very limited and thanks to our strong community I have always been notified by means of this forum and/or an email from somebody.
- This website is driven by 100.000 visitors a day who are just looking for something nice on there desktop as long as it does not hold a watermark.
If everybody puts a watermark on every photo their interest will fade very quickly and with it the interest of sponsors, advertisers, photographers and first class members as well.
This would mean the end of A.net as we know it today and solve the watermark issue ones and for all but is that what we want ?
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Eksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1241 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3624 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW ARTICLE EDITOR
Like Johan said, post watermark implemenatation I uploaded stuff here that I would never have otherwise knowing that there was atleast-in the very least- a mechanism beyond a superfluous banner at the bottom. I realize the first class member can rip it off...but for NOW I guess this is as good as it gets.
I truly hope that Johan and his crew will remain on top of technology and implement new features as they evolve. I have no reason to believe Johan would not protect the photographer or turn a blind eye to copyright abuse despite numerous instances that are brought to our attention. I have seen periodical upgrades to this website hence I am putting my faith in him to safeguard the photographers work.
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
Well said, Willem. Exactly my thoughts.
Due to the watermarks my a.net visits aren't as much fun as they used to be. I see a beautiful air-to-air image, open it--only to discover there's a big fat watermark on the photo. Not only get photos blemished by this, but users also get fooled because they don't see the watermarks on the thumbnails.