Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Request For Posters  
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2948 times:

If you're one of the lucky ones who get their photos accepted, PLEASE do not put a watermark ON THE body of the fuselage of the plane. There are dozens of ruined pictures because there is a big airliners.net on the way. If possible don't put a watermark that is visible. Very annoying. Here's an example:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...26&prev_id=1147408&next_id=1146655

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...=5&prev_id=1101862&next_id=1093331

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2944 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
PLEASE do not put a watermark ON THE body

I don't see any watermark Big grin

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
Very annoying.

But I fully agree.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2936 times:

Well, I thought watermark was supposed to be used to protect rare/special shots. I have noticed that the watermark feature is often used on very common shots, maybe because the photographer finds the logo "cool"? It often ruins good pictures for no obvious reason.

Maybe a.net needs a new reject reason - "watermark", which applies to pictures which have no reason to be protected by the watermark or where the watermark is really badly placed.

/ jajo

[Edited 2006-12-12 21:50:53]

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2921 times:

Quoting Jajo (Reply 2):
Well, I thought watermark was supposed to be used to protect rare/special shots. I have noticed that the watermark feature is often used on very common shots, maybe because the photographer finds the logo "cool"? It often ruins good pictures for no obvious reason.

Maybe a.net needs a new reject reason - "watermark", which applies to pictures which have no reason to be protected by the watermark or where the watermark is really badly placed.

The watermark feature is optional and used to protect any and all photos a particular photog chooses. While there are no stats on which pictures are stolen more (if any), based on my experience, it's often the very common shots that sell better than a rare/special shot.

IIRC, watermarks are not seen by First Class members. If you truly hate the watermark, don't hate the uploader. Just buy First Class  Smile

Mike


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2917 times:

Isn't there an option of a watermark that is very hard to see?

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 4):
Isn't there an option of a watermark that is very hard to see?

Yes, there are different "levels" of intensity. I usually go with the faint or one step above that but each photog chooses his/her own option.

Mike


User currently offlineTommy Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 912 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 4):
Isn't there an option of a watermark that is very hard to see?

When uploading we can select how faint the watermark will be and where it will appear.

But, the stronger watermark, the safer protection. so....


Tommy Mogren



Flightdeck Action - Cockpit Videos on Blu-ray and DVD - Flights In The Cockpit- You're Invited!
User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 3):
IIRC, watermarks are not seen by First Class members. If you truly hate the watermark, don't hate the uploader. Just buy First Class

Haha  spin 

Well, hate is a powerful word. I don't hate watermarks or the uploaders who use them, but it degrades the experience of the site. Just as an unlevelled or soft photo, a misplaced watermark reduces the value of a photo.

I see your point aswell and I think it is good that you provide features to reduce risk of theft. Maybe that will make some photographers upload shots they normally would keep for themselves because of risk of theft. But I suspect that many photographers use watermarks without being afraid of getting their pictures stolen. I may be wrong.

/ jajo


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2893 times:

Quoting Jajo (Reply 7):
But I suspect that many photographers use watermarks without being afraid of getting their pictures stolen. I may be wrong.

I think you are. There has been a long debate about watermarks and that 1st class members can see them for 5 bucks a month....

I used them only a few weeks and stopped it because some people dislike them but understand the photogs which pics were stolen that they want to protect them. IIRC Vasco G. had a picture stolen and posted on a site even with the watermark which was chopped off b/c it was at the bottom of the image.

Georg


User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8):
Quoting Jajo (Reply 7):
But I suspect that many photographers use watermarks without being afraid of getting their pictures stolen. I may be wrong.


I think you are.

I think you are.  Wink
Jajo, you're probably right, there are quite some uploaders who don't really care about abuse, but just use watermarking as it's a new feature, and somehow neat to be part of that.... at least what I was told twice after emailing a guy who had a photo used w/o permission even though he had a watermark on blue sky..... the point is? None!

Watermarks are supposed to be on the subject.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
There are dozens of ruined pictures because there is a big airliners.net on the way

And risk it getting stolen? Doubt it. Deal with it my friend.

And if I get "hated" for wanting to protect my pics then hate me. I don't care.


User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 10):
And if I get "hated" for wanting to protect my pics then hate me. I don't care.

I agree, and I'm just a newbie who hasn't had anything stolen yet.

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
If you're one of the lucky ones who get their photos accepted

I don't think there was any luck involved, just hard work and an investment in equipment.

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
PLEASE do not put a watermark ON THE body of the fuselage of the plane. There are dozens of ruined pictures because there is a big airliners.net on the way. If possible don't put a watermark that is visible. Very annoying. Here's an example:

I think the photographers that put the watermark right on the fuselage know exactly what they're doing.

If someone doesn't like the watermark they should just buy a membership.

B


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 11):
I agree, and I'm just a newbie who hasn't had anything stolen yet.

You only don't know....do you know for sure.....you can't know exactly.

Georg


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
There are dozens of ruined pictures because there is a big airliners.net on the way. If possible don't put a watermark that is visible. Very annoying.

Don't be such a cheap ass then....and just buy a 1st class memebership.

Do you know what is annoying? Threads like this by people that don't have a clue.  Smile


User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 13):
Don't be such a cheap ass then....and just buy a 1st class memebership.

I agree 100%!

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):

IMHO this whole complaint sounds a little fishy. scratchchin 

Any photog here that prefers to have the watermark on their photo is working to deter theft of the photo and protecting against copyright infringement. By placing the watermark in the center of the photo (even if it covers an airframe that is depicted in the photo) helps to make it harder to be cut it out using any photo editing software. The same goes for posting photos on other sites, the photog should place a watermark on those photos to help deter against theft and copyright infringement. If someone wants an unmarked copy of any photo in question, then they can notify the photog by any means available. Once that is done, then the photog and the individual asking for the photo can negotiate the deal afterwards.

My  twocents  worth.



"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
User currently offlineFlyFloats From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

i recently started putting a "very faint" watermark in the middle of all my uploads after finding a surprising number of, how shall we say, unauthorized uses of my a.net photos. No apologies for it, I'm glad for this feature and will continue to use it. Even though I find it slightly distracting to look at a photo with the watermark (not just mine but all watermarked photos) I feel it outweights the risk of not having it there.

[Edited 2006-12-13 05:19:10]

User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 12):
You only don't know....do you know for sure.....you can't know exactly.

Georg

I do know. At a previous employer I kept some film at work. Twice it was taken and used for corporate advertising. Once was blatently without my permission (and they re-ran the ad a year later after I complained!), and the second time they used an out-of-town photo of mine to promote the town by falsely labeling the location of the image.

The web isn't the only place people experience image theft, which is exactly why I put watermarks on from the get-go.

B


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 16):

How can you know? Do we talk about the same thing. You claim to know none of your pics has been used without permission. You checked every website in the www and had a look on every small advertising in e.g. China?

Normally the Anetters are good in finding out such theft but they can't be everywhere.


Georg


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

I'm not convinced it's fishy. Sounds to me like an enthusiast who doesn't like watermarks, and doesn't understand the theft issue.

For every dishonest individual grabbing images for commercial use, there's thousands of enthusiasts who like the pictures for what they are, and I appreciate they find defacing them a bit sad.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 17):
How can you know? Do we talk about the same thing. You claim to know none of your pics has been used without permission. You checked every website in the www and had a look on every small advertising in e.g. China?

I thought you meant I can't know what it's like to have pictures stolen, sorry for the confusion. Let me rephrase the comment "I don't know of any of my pictures being stolen." Happy?

Of course I don't know if any pictures have been stolen, I only put the watermark on to reduce the chances. I'm not egotistical enough to even think my pictures are worth stealing, but it doesn't cost anything to watermark them so why wouldn't I?

One of my vehicles is a rusty 13 year old Honda Civic that's on it's last legs. But that doesn't mean I leave the doors open and the key in the ignition.

I put my images up there to share, not as a public service for companies looking for freebies. If people won't look because of the watermark or don't want to buy a membership, that's entirely up to them.

B


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 19):

I thought you meant I can't know what it's like to have pictures stolen, sorry for the confusion. Let me rephrase the comment "I don't know of any of my pictures being stolen." Happy?

Yes....let's take this as an example how problems of simple misunderstandings can be solved without fighting till death  Wink Big grin  Smile

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 19):

One of my vehicles is a rusty 13 year old Honda Civic that's on it's last legs. But that doesn't mean I leave the doors open and the key in the ignition.

Nice example

Georg


User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 20):

Yes....let's take this as an example how problems of simple misunderstandings can be solved without fighting till death

Well THAT just sucks the fun out of it!  Wink

And while I'm thinking about it, want to buy a Honda Civic? It's just like new...  rotfl 

Cheers,
B


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 21):
And while I'm thinking about it, want to buy a Honda Civic? It's just like new...

Will you pay shippings costs  Wink

Georg


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...
Request For Use Of My Bahrain Amiri Photos posted Sat Jun 24 2006 11:25:27 by SmithAir747
Request For Info Or Service posted Thu Jun 22 2006 15:25:30 by CHabu
Request For Photo posted Mon Apr 10 2006 01:59:51 by Kmh1956
Request For Photo At AMS posted Fri Apr 7 2006 20:59:52 by LuckyEddie
Help Request For Quality Rejection? posted Sat Jan 21 2006 17:45:46 by Walter2222
Photo Request For Use In A Book - Advice? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 23:53:46 by Res
Photo Request For Webpage posted Sat Aug 13 2005 11:16:16 by FlyingZacko
Photo Request For "Personal Collection" posted Mon Aug 8 2005 12:17:05 by FlyingZacko
A Request For LHR Spotters... posted Wed May 4 2005 16:42:49 by KhenleyDIA
Request For Rejection Help... posted Tue Mar 29 2005 02:57:04 by AirbusfanYYZ