Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?

Z
Posted By
zorro
Feb 6, 2009
Views
1241
Replies
47
Status
Closed
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig
Related Tags
copyright image protection watermark

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

MC
Mike Coon
Feb 6, 2009
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

Not really my thoughts, but you could refer to David Jones’ illustrated web-log at http://www.mybitoftheplanet.com/. Because the photos there are meant for web viewing they are not of publication resolution. However when he discovered that he could sell his more interesting pictures he started including a simple copyright statement on them. I think that he may have mentioned this in his narrative.

Mike.
—
If reply address is invalid, remove spurious "@" and substitute "plus" where needed.
LT
Larry Thong
Feb 6, 2009
zorro wrote:

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

Needn’t worry about being pretentious, everybody is an artist or photographer in the digital age, especially on Usenet. I think watermarks cheapen a photo, but the best way to thwart image thievery is to only post low resolution small sized images no larger than 1024×768.
PF
Paul Furman
Feb 6, 2009
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

One reason to watermark is people will download, rename & pass the files around… eventually someone might want a bigger copy, or at least wonder who did it & where they can see more. My approach is to apply a very small watermark with the most subtle transparency I can get away with. Think of it like a signature on a painting, just a little thing down in the corner. The big ones are annoying and detract from appreciating the photo. If it’s on a stock photo site, that’s understandable but not if people are supposed to visit the gallery for pleasure. In that case, if it’s the sort of image people might steal for commercial use on the web, I’d rather see a faint ‘X’ across the image than a big logo & copyright. Also, with a small watermark in the corner, people will just crop that out.

—
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
AB
Alan Browne
Feb 6, 2009
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited reproduction value (except in other web pages…). Many photo sites intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason. (no larger than 500 – 600 pixels).

2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.

3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage.

4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the webpages referring to the images. A reminder to those who don’t pay much attention to rights. (Eg: the younger generation who freely exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
— usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 6, 2009
Alan Browne wrote:
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited reproduction value (except in other web pages…). Many photo sites intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason. (no larger than 500 – 600 pixels).

2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.

They can also often be discreet, and even artistic!
3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage.
4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the webpages referring to the images. A reminder to those who don’t pay much attention to rights. (Eg: the younger generation who freely exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).

Why not post the URL and then you can get even more ‘real’ opinions!

—
John McWilliams
T
Trev
Feb 6, 2009
In news:gmhl28$kn4$,
John McWilliams bashed on keyboard and typed:
Alan Browne wrote:
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited reproduction value (except in other web pages…). Many photo sites intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason. (no larger than 500 – 600 pixels).

2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.

They can also often be discreet, and even artistic!
3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage. 4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the
webpages referring to the images. A reminder to those who don’t pay much attention to rights. (Eg: the younger generation who freely exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).

Why not post the URL and then you can get even more ‘real’ opinions!

And nick the pics !
O
OG
Feb 6, 2009
"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.

On the other hand, some people don’t like hanging around waiting for Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off.
JJ
John J
Feb 6, 2009
OG wrote:

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.

It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest.

IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source.
F
Frank ess
Feb 6, 2009
John J wrote:
OG wrote:

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.

It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest.

IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source.

Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image’s progress through the world.

—
Frank ess
D
Dave
Feb 6, 2009
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:42:54 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:

John J wrote:
OG wrote:

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.

It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest.

IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source.

Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image’s progress through the world.

The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a fuck how much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it ‘free to everybody’. If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it’s yours but even more making it unusable.

Dave
F
Frank ess
Feb 6, 2009
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:42:54 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:

John J wrote:
OG wrote:

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.

It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest.

IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source.

Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in the image’s progress through the world.

The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a fuck how much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it ‘free to everybody’. If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it’s yours
but even more making it unusable.

Dave

The question had to do with "pretentious", didn’t it?

"Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your "simple truth", don’t they?

—
Frank ess
D
Dave
Feb 7, 2009
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:51:07 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:

The question had to do with "pretentious", didn’t it?
"Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your "simple truth", don’t they?

True – had to use a dictionary to confirm the meaning of the word (although it is obviously an auxiliary derived from pretend). Is it pretentious to reply to something in another language than your home language when not being100% sure of the meaning of a specific word?

I am not a regular reader of this group (in fact 1st time here:-) Only a passer-by.

There is of course the possibility your answer impressed the rest of the contributors, but over here it only evoked a smile.

Keep well

Dave
http://kuns.fotopic.net/p53776192.html
T
tinnews
Feb 7, 2009
In uk.rec.photo.misc OG wrote:
"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.
But it’s trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that’s pointless.

On the other hand, some people don’t like hanging around waiting for Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off.
Quite, flash is definitely a negative pointer as far as I’m concerned.

—
Chris Green
N
nospamclayton
Feb 7, 2009
"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

Just make sure it is not that visible.
C
cbauwifl6
Feb 7, 2009
On Feb 6, 7:12 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
zorro wrote:
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited reproduction value (except in other web pages…).  Many photo sites intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason.  (no larger than 500 – 600 pixels).

2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.
3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage.
4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the webpages referring to the images.  A reminder to those who don’t pay much attention to rights.  (Eg: the younger generation who freely exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).
—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm —      
CJ
C J Campbell
Feb 7, 2009
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist. Nothing more nor less.

I sign my prints in pencil. And I number them. Is that pretentious? Or is it marketing?

—
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
TC
tony cooper
Feb 7, 2009
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell<removethis>@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge watermark across the face.

The photographs she links to are – at best – mundane and without interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional" is the better word.

A watermark that identifies the photographer is not pretentious. It is the size and placement that can make it pretentious.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
AB
Alan Browne
Feb 7, 2009
.. wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:12 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Though I have not sold a photo for publication I’ve wondered if potential publishers consider photos that have been shown on web pages as still being qualified as available as "first time published" photos. It seems that this may compromise a photos acceptance as not before published.

Just looking at the very high quality photography at
http://photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter?rank_by=photog _avg&period=90&store_prefs_p=0
might answer your question. And one fellow there had his photo.net phot of an eagle grabbing a fish published in Nat Geo as a "write in".

There are many categories of publishing such as news ("scoop", then freshness [on top of relevant]) counts most. So if it’s been published as scoop, it still has life as fresh [embargoed for a time before publishing by rivals], then background and archive).

Catalog/stock photos used for advertising and editorial use can have limitless life and re-usability (depending on terms). (This covers so wide a range of photography as to defy writing about here).

Fashion photography is a bizarre world of advertising and editorial – freshness counts, but print-print-print counts even more. Short shelf life other than rare and exceptional shots/series.

Art may be exclusive, eg: the web version is to advertise it and print runs guaranteed to be limited to a certain number of copies by the publisher/artist – or not.

And more, and more, and variations on all.

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
— usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
AB
Alan Browne
Feb 7, 2009
C J Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist. Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don’t care if phots are marked – as long as it doesn’t detract.

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
— usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 7, 2009
"R. Mark Clayton" found these unused words:

"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

Just make sure it is not that visible.
If you "feel the need" make it very visible.

OTW, learn the law, your rights and what ‘protection’ you have.

Hint: effectively NONE on the internet!
CJ
C J Campbell
Feb 7, 2009
On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist. Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don’t care if phots are marked – as long as it doesn’t detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad photographer?

—
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
V
Voivod
Feb 7, 2009
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:55:14 -0800, C J Campbell
scribbled:

On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist. Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don’t care if phots are marked – as long as it doesn’t detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad photographer?

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
TC
tony cooper
Feb 7, 2009
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:55:14 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist. Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don’t care if phots are marked – as long as it doesn’t detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad photographer?

To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim distinction where none is justified. So it’s what you do, and the way you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?) is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large, intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos pretentiously.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida
D
Dave
Feb 8, 2009
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=ytfw6v&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
V
Voivod
Feb 8, 2009
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.
D
Dave
Feb 8, 2009
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:55:02 -0500, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.

so, the watermark cause the poster to have at least one fan.
V
Voivod
Feb 8, 2009
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:51:29 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:55:02 -0500, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.

so, the watermark cause the poster to have at least one fan.

Being your only fan is having no fans at all.
F
Frank ess
Feb 8, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave
scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain

—
Frank ess
D
Dave
Feb 8, 2009
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain

Yep, don’t worry twit,
It’s done.
You won’t irritate me anymore
V
Voivod
Feb 8, 2009
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave
scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

I’m sure it’s what drug you out of the woodwork.
AS
Alex Singleton
Feb 8, 2009
On 2009-02-06 11:17:35 +0000, zorro said:

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you want to show.

The truth is that, in an age of ubiquitous supply (and royalty free web sites like iStockPhoto), most photography has a market value of zero or thereabouts (unless it’s a particularly exclusive picture that people are desperate for, such as of a celebrity doing something of note).

If, as you say, she’s an amateur, then she might as well just make the images available and let people enjoy them at in their full beauty.

—
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/
F
Frank ess
Feb 8, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave
scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:
It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least of the problem.

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

I’m sure it’s what drug you out of the woodwork.

QED
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 9, 2009
Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain

Yep, don’t worry twit,
It’s done.
You won’t irritate me anymore

Butt, will he irritate you any less?
O
OG
Feb 9, 2009
wrote in message
In uk.rec.photo.misc OG wrote:
"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.
But it’s trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that’s pointless.

right click | Save Picture As …

compared to

Alt + Prt Scr, Win, All Programs, Accessories, Paint, click . . . . Ctrl+V, File | Save |*#*|<enter picture name> |tab| ‘J’ |tab| Save

Not difficult; but not necessarily ‘trivial’ either.

*#* represents a navigation to My Documents | My Pictures
D
Dave
Feb 9, 2009
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:34:44 -0500, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" scribbled:

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

I’m sure it’s what drug you out of the woodwork.

LOL
JJ
John J
Feb 9, 2009
tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge watermark across the face.

The photographs she links to are – at best – mundane and without interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional" is the better word.

Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he’s the judge of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That’s not a bad thing, except he’s delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.
JJ
John J
Feb 9, 2009
Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 9, 2009
John J wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge watermark across the face.
The photographs she links to are – at best – mundane and without interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional" is the better word.

Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he’s the judge of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That’s not a bad thing, except he’s delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.

That’s a big brave assertion from an anonymous coward. Get real. Our tony is not delusional in the least.

—
lsmft
V
Voivod
Feb 9, 2009
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:33:57 -0600, John J
scribbled:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to worry about.

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge watermark across the face.

The photographs she links to are – at best – mundane and without interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional" is the better word.

Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he’s the judge of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That’s not a bad thing, except he’s delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?
V
Voivod
Feb 9, 2009
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don’t you, dipshit?
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 9, 2009
"OG" found these unused words:

wrote in message
In uk.rec.photo.misc OG wrote:
"zorro" wrote in message
Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a watermark on all her images but now she’s wondering if people will think she’s being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no one’s heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it’s legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often images have no watermark.

Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents direct downloading of images.
But it’s trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that’s pointless.

right click | Save Picture As …

compared to

Alt + Prt Scr, Win, All Programs, Accessories, Paint, click . . . . Ctrl+V, File | Save |*#*|<enter picture name> |tab| ‘J’ |tab| Save

Not difficult; but not necessarily ‘trivial’ either.
Well, anything is more difficult if you don’t know the shortcuts!
JJ
John J
Feb 9, 2009
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.
V
Voivod
Feb 9, 2009
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:39:06 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

So you weren’t judging him when you claimed you could state he was delusional? Please, just quite while you’re behind, you’ve already lost. There’s no reason to make it any worse.
F
Frank ess
Feb 9, 2009
John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don’t you, dipshit?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line, after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

—
Frank ess
V
Voivod
Feb 9, 2009
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:31:35 -0800, "Frank ess" scribbled:

John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don’t you, dipshit?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line, after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

You’re seriously not as clever as you imagine.
F
Frank ess
Feb 10, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:31:35 -0800, "Frank ess" scribbled:

John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don’t you, dipshit?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line, after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

You’re seriously not as clever as you imagine.

As opposed to your ‘umble self, who clearly makes no pretension to "cleverness"?
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 10, 2009
"Frank ess" found these unused words:

John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When’d we elect you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It’s even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don’t you, dipshit?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line, after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

Sorry, I failed to attend that convention where your conventional wisdom became the convention for all to convene in posting!

TAFFLOAVSP … !

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections