Moaning about stolen images

D

Dave Stone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,382
Edit My Images
No
There seem to be an increasing number of people on here moaning about having their images stolen. Why if it is not necessery are they on the web, why are most not watermarked and why are they usually a reasonably high resolution. You wouldn't leave your TV on your doorstep and expect it to be there when you get home. So why leave your images where they can be stolen.

I know people shouldn't take them but, they do! So why make it easy?
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
What if you do all above and they still get taken? Do we have permission to moan then?

:D
Click to expand...

Absolutely, yes. It just seems people are reluctant to watermark. god help anyone who puts an image on here with a watermark. The crit usually starts with " the watermark ruins it".
 
It just makes me laugh when people plaster images all over Facebook, twitter, flickr, 500px etc and then moan when they are nicked.
 
Dave Stone said:
Absolutely, yes. It just seems people are reluctant to watermark. god help anyone who puts an image on here with a watermark. The crit usually starts with " the watermark ruins it".
Click to expand...

haha very true, lost count the amount of times I have had that comment in a thread of my pics. Sadly all mine at usually 800px (some 900px) with sizeable watermarks and still they get nicked :(
 
Slightly off topic but I have noticed, could be coincidence, but I have yet to have any pics nicked from http://liveoopnorth.co.uk/ which has a very obvious watermark. Stuff from my photoblog is constantly getting taken though which has a smaller and maybe less pro looking watermark?
 
Dave Stone said:
There seem to be an increasing number of people on here moaning about having their images stolen. Why if it is not necessery are they on the web, why are most not watermarked and why are they usually a reasonably high resolution. You wouldn't leave your TV on your doorstep and expect it to be there when you get home. So why leave your images where they can be stolen.

I know people shouldn't take them but, they do! So why make it easy?
Click to expand...

People generally moan because it's illegal. They shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops because they have the law to protect them in the event that any images are stolen.

Also, watermarks look horrible, and are generally only applied on amateur photographs.
 
The last image i had stolen had my watermark and website right across it. It wont stop them.
 
asphotographymk said:
The last image i had stolen had my watermark and website right across it. It wont stop them.
Click to expand...

Must admit Ive moaned loads of time, lots of my stolen shots have watermarks on them and they dont bother removing them, most are foreign sites that they are on thailand spain portugal greece Ive contacted them but they just ignore it, Ive had to date 54 images nicked that I know of, in the early days I didnt watermark my images, but now any I think worth nicking get big and small (as they will miss them) hard to see watermarks, but then we post them on TP and get slated because of the watermark :shrug:
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
People generally moan because it's illegal. They shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops because they have the law to protect them in the event that any images are stolen.

*******Also, watermarks look horrible, and are generally only applied on amateur photographs********.
Click to expand...

Eh???

Seriously?
 
People generally moan because it's illegal. They shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops because they have the law to protect them in the event that any images are stolen.
Click to expand...

Do you lock your house when you go out?

Also, watermarks look horrible, and are generally only applied on amateur photographs.
Click to expand...

Really!
 
odd jim said:
Eh???

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Indeed. See any watermarks on Jill Greenberg's images? Annie's? How many advertising or fashion photographers do you know who stick huge watermarks on all of their images?

Watermarks are generally applied to the images of photographers who sell directly to the public, or by photographers who don't care about damaging the integrity or the composition of their work. People who don't care about these things are generally less skilled then those who do care about foreign elements invading their shots and distracting the eye.
 
Why do you need insurance when the law is there to protect you in the event anything is stolen. A lock may not stop a determined burglar. As a watermark will not stop a determined thief. They do help stop oportunists. someone will take an un watermarked image over one with.
 
Had this happen to a friend of my sisters. Flickr image being used as a cover for Scottish tourist site. He was proud but less than impressed.
 
Dark Knight said:
I can't wait until somebody steals one of mine... will give me a bit of a boost :D unless it's for a 'How not to do it' blog
Click to expand...

It wont youll be well sick and loads of time find an email, telling them to remove it, putting all over theier twitter and other network sites, for what, no pay, and maybe theyll remove it or just ignore you
 
Dave Stone said:
There seem to be an increasing number of people on here moaning about having their images stolen. Why if it is not necessery are they on the web, why are most not watermarked and why are they usually a reasonably high resolution. You wouldn't leave your TV on your doorstep and expect it to be there when you get home. So why leave your images where they can be stolen.

I know people shouldn't take them but, they do! So why make it easy?
Click to expand...

The images I post on here are not likely to get nicked. If they are, well, i have more important things to worry about. when i do a customers gallery they are watermarked at 72dpi, but for showing on here not fussed.
 
Just Dave said:
It wont youll be well sick and loads of time find an email, telling them to remove it, putting all over theier twitter and other network sites, for what, no pay, and maybe theyll remove it or just ignore you
Click to expand...
True Dave.... but how did you spot your fist stolen image, were you just browsing the web ??
 
London Headshots said:
Indeed. See any watermarks on Jill Greenberg's images? Annie's? How many advertising or fashion photographers do you know who stick huge watermarks on all of their images?

Watermarks are generally applied to the images of photographers who sell directly to the public, or by photographers who don't care about damaging the integrity or the composition of their work. People who don't care about these things are generally less skilled then those who do care about foreign elements invading their shots and distracting the eye.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do have a point but I wouldn't generalise as such, though I can see where you are coming from.

I've seen some fabulous photos on here with watermarks though, which is why I wouldn't apply the above to everyone.
 
Last edited:
The images I post on here are not likely to get nicked. If they are, well, i have more important things to worry about. when i do a customers gallery they are watermarked at 72dpi, but for showing on here not fussed.
Click to expand...

Same here. 72dpi and watermarked. If anything I don't watermark gets nicked it's tough luck.
 
Dave Stone said:
Why do you need insurance when the law is there to protect you in the event anything is stolen. A lock may not stop a determined burglar. As a watermark will not stop a determined thief. They do help stop oportunists. someone will take an un watermarked image over one with.
Click to expand...

Because insurance also protects against accidental damage and acts of nature.
 
odd jim said:
Yes, you do have a point but I wouldn't generalise as such, though I can see where you are coming from.

I've seen some fabulous photos on here with watermarks though, which is why I wouldn't apply the above to everyone.
Click to expand...

No of course not. There are some excellent photographers runnin their work with watermarks. I mentioned it to someone today on here. They removed all of the watermarks and said the images had been greatly improved.
 
I don't think your Insurance analogy holds much water. However I do see where you are coming from. The law won't help you a great deal when someone from China, Russia etc nicks an image because it wasn't watermarked over one that was.
 
I really dont think watermaking ruins your work. Unless they are sold with the watermak intact.
 
Dark Knight said:
True Dave.... but how did you spot your fist stolen image, were you just browsing the web ??
Click to expand...

Google image search, drag your image into the search bar and off it goes looking for matches, or the other cant think what its called, heres 1 I found last night 3 sites have nicked it

My image


Phra Nakhon Cave Temple Thailand by Just Daves Photos, on Flickr

and nicked and on sites notice they dint even remove my then naive watermark, lol just looked now and the 3 sites have all removed my image but yet never replied to my email
 
Dave Stone said:
I don't think your Insurance analogy holds much water. However I do see where you are coming from. The law won't help you a great deal when someone from China, Russia etc nicks an image because it wasn't watermarked over one that was.
Click to expand...

I don't care about people from Russia or China stealing my images. I know it's a lost cause chasing them so I write it off.

That being said, my girlfriend is an intellectual property solicitor, so I only write it off out of choice. It'd cost me nothing to fight.
 
I'm playing devils advocate a bit as I can see valid arguments for and against watermarking. However, if I had an unwatermarked image stolen I wouldn't be moaning about it. If images are left unprotected it's the owners fault.
 
Just Dave said:
Google image search, drag your image into the search bar and off it goes looking for matches, or the other cant think what its called, heres 1 I found last night 3 sites have nicked it

My image


Phra Nakhon Cave Temple Thailand by Just Daves Photos, on Flickr

and nicked and on sites notice they dint even remove my then naive watermark, lol just looked now and the 3 sites have all removed my image but yet never replied to my email
Click to expand...
Damn :thumbsdown:
 
Dark Knight said:
Damn :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Exactly concidering the effort I had to go to never mind the cash to get there

Its in Khao San Roi Yot National Park Thailand, we drove in a taxi 300 miles from Bangkok, and then from the beach and after a short 20mins, long tail boat ride we landed on a beach, we walked up a track through the rainforest which led to another rocky path with a 450m steep uphill mountain trek, it was really hard going, then we had to walk back down into the cave to see the Phra Nakhon Temple where there is the Subterranean sanctuary of King Rama V's pavilion, the Tham PHraya Nakhon cave chamber contains a temple , breathtaking, absolutely amazingly beautiful, and well worth the 50 mins up hillwalk slog, we passed many people who gave up
 
Last edited:
You will have to go a long way to find anyone with a more aggresive watermark than mine... Yet still people take them and use them on facebook.. I have seen pics of screen taken wiht a mobile phone and uploaded.... People use mine as there main picture.... with my very ugly big bright watermark on them..

Beggers belief really ..
 
Generally I don't watermark :( I can understand the frustration at having a photo stolen and can accept that it can reduce the risk but it will not stop it and on a risk/reward basis my main aim is to produce hopefully high quality appealing photo's and on that basis I personally feel watermarks detract from the images :(

I guess however it's a judgement call to each photographer...

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Just Dave said:
Exactly concidering the effort I had to go to never mind the cash to get there

Its in Khao San Roi Yot National Park Thailand, we drove in a taxi 300 miles from Bangkok, and then from the beach and after a short 20mins, long tail boat ride we landed on a beach, we walked up a track through the rainforest which led to another rocky path with a 450m steep uphill mountain trek, it was really hard going, then we had to walk back down into the cave to see the Phra Nakhon Temple where there is the Subterranean sanctuary of King Rama V's pavilion, the Tham PHraya Nakhon cave chamber contains a temple , breathtaking, absolutely amazingly beautiful, and well worth the 50 mins up hillwalk slog, we passed many people who gave up
Click to expand...
That sounds and looks wonderful Dave... a cracking Image worthy of paying for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top