Moaning about stolen images

Dave Stone said:
If images are left unprotected it's the owners fault.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's the fault of the person stealing the image.

Just because you didn't take every precaution to try and deter people from doing something illegal doesn't make it your fault if they commit the the crime.

There are precautions that you can try to take, and you can do that to whatever degree you are comfortable with, but still show your images. Full res images are not wise, but if that's what you want to show, then fine. It's a more tempting target to thief, but if that's what you want to show to people. :shrug:

Full res images edited to be 72dpi makes no difference btw, in case anyone's doing that. ;)

I choose to post my images at 800 pixels, to try and deter copying, with no watermarks, and even then I had an image stolen from here by a company who posted it on Flickr. They stupidly retained my name, with argument that it was on the internet so it was free (oh no :nono:) and that it was good advertising for me. My reply was that images are not free on the internet, and any advertising is wasted if you don't tell me about it. :bang: They were also using it on their company website in a slide show (posted image size other than a thumbnail would have been irrelevant) to advertise their fireworks. Who was gaining from the image? I certainly was not. :shake: I think Jimmy Lemon had one taken at the same time.

The only way to guarantee that people don't steal your images is to not show them to anyone.

Let's not try to blame the victim's eh!
 
MWHCVT said:
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
Click to expand...

I would prefer to show best quality pics Matt, with no watermark, but folk will take advantage of your work, creativity, experience, time, cash to get the shots, OK you enjoy taking the pics and try perfect it, in your own style

No watermarks = Stolen, believe me Ive fell fell fowl to many times to mention(you know that Ive sent you many pms were weve spoke about my stolen images), and spend half my time chasing it up, and for what nowt
 
Just Dave said:
I would prefer to show best quality pics Matt, with no watermark, but folk will take advantage of your work, creativity, experience, time, cash to get the shots, OK you enjoy taking the pics and try perfect it, in your own style

No watermarks = Stolen, believe me Ive fell fell fowl to many times to mention(you know that Ive sent you many pms were weve spoke about my stolen images), and spend half my time chasing it up, and for what nowt
Click to expand...

Indeed we have Dave and indeed I do agree, I guess that it's more a personal thing with me that I don't as a rule use a watermark :thumbs:

I've also never found one of my images out there in the wider world maybe that means that all I take is utter cack :suspect:
 
fastworldimages said:
better tell Getty/pa/Reuters photographers their photos are amateur then eh :shrug:
Click to expand...

Thats always been my first thought when this discussion comes up.

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?
Click to expand...



Because these people have been paid huge amounts of money for that work, because they have the financial clout to pay people to go after the offenders?

London Headshots said:
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...

Sorry but that's coming over as very arrogant and smug. You may not mean it but your posts in this thread are very condescending.

I've been to four exhibitions over the last week on my travels, all had a no photography rule in the galleries, so yes artists do protect their work - just different ways. Whilst not watermarked, Micheal Kenna's prints were signed in the corner.
 
fastworldimages said:
better tell Getty/pa/Reuters photographers their photos are amateur then eh :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, we're actually talking about photographers and their own work, not huge corporations who pay other people to take shots. Watermarking in that instance isn't for protection, it's for identity.
 
Byker28i said:
T




Because these people have been paid huge amounts of money for that work, because they have the financial clout to pay people to go after the offenders?



Sorry but that's coming over as very arrogant and smug. You may not mean it but your posts in this thread are very condescending.

I've been to four exhibitions over the last week on my travels, all had a no photography rule in the galleries, so yes artists do protect their work - just different ways. Whilst not watermarked, Micheal Kenna's prints were signed in the corner.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling anyone in this thread an amateur, I'm saying that watermarks on photographs generally look amateur, and seem to be used by people who are maybe not at the level where they care enough about the integrity of their shots. Sometimes the truth just sounds a bit condescending. I can't help that. The images in the landscape section of my website are watermarked, because I don't care about them, because they're personal work. ie. Amateur. So if I'm being arrogant, I'm only doing myself a disservice in the process.

Also, you kind of prove my point by giving me an example of a professional who watermarks their work, and having to step right out of the boundaries of the thread, and still, you admit that they don't actually watermark their work.

So I'm unsure why you even gave the example. Exhibition prints are mostly always signed.
 
Last edited:
They say to help prevent your house being broken into, you just have to make it that bit more secure than your neighbours to make it a less desirable target.

I use the same technique with my photography - I make sure my photos are just that bit crappier than everyone else's :-)
 
As you know it has been said before Dave, if you put an image up on the web then one way or the other it will get nicked. Can anything be done to stop it? I doubt it very much, I would imagine screen grabs could never be stopped, perhaps in the future they can devise a way that as soon as you put your cursor over an image it just turns black :shrug: I would have to ask out of all those that have complained, who has honestly not got a hooky bit of software, a free mp3 or album etc etc ;)
 
London Headshots said:
Watermarking in that instance isn't for protection, it's for identity.
Click to expand...

There speaks someone who has never used a wire service.
 
I got fed up of chasing non payers - so watermark almost everything I put on the web. It wont stop them but if it makes it look ugly and they want ugly, I'm your man ;)
 
DemiLion said:
There speaks someone who has never used a wire service.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that using or not using one actually matters. Reuters and Co send their images out all over the world, it makes perfect sense that they'd watermark their IP for both brand purposes and protection.

Regardless, it's a completely different ball game, because this thread is about photographers watermarking their personal property, not corporations watermarking their acquisitions.
 
London Headshots said:
I'm not sure that using or not using one actually matters. Reuters and Co send their images out all over the world, it makes perfect sense that they'd watermark their IP for both brand purposes and protection.

Regardless, it's a completely different ball game, because this thread is about photographers watermarking their personal property, not corporations watermarking their acquisitions.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same principle. Thirdlight, IDS and most other contributory wire services apply watermarks, because otherwise magazines nick them. The same concept applies on an open forum or whatever you use as a shop window.

If I have something that's likely to make, I either don't show it on here, or stick a watermark on it. The rest gets uploaded without proofing, but still with IPTC intact. I've got no problem with anyone nicking my stuff, because I'll just bill them for usage later.
 
more to the point, its sad that we live in a world where people like to pass someone else`s image off as they`re own. I could never do it if i liked an image enough i would have to go and produce the image myself or buy a copy. But could never ever pass someone else`s off as mine.
 
I was considering adding a big old ugly watermark but so far nothing of mine has been stolen as far as I am aware. Having boring photos seems to be the best way of preventing theft :)

I'm sure flickr used to have an option where you could say you didn't want your images accessed via their api only by the site. That seems to have disappeared.
 
i dont get it,do you search all your images to find one stolen?

and how do you drag a photo into google search from my pictures or am i missing something?
 
I confess, I am one of the moaners the OP mentions. The problem is it ****es me off, and rather than be cool, calm and collected I sometimes shoot from the hip!
 
straycat said:
i dont get it,do you search all your images to find one stolen?

and how do you drag a photo into google search from my pictures or am i missing something?
Click to expand...

I would also like to know this
 
redhed17 said:
No it's not. It's the fault of the person stealing the image.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Whether your image is watermarked or not, as soon as it's uploaded to the internet it's at risk of being "used". If you leave your spanking new pushbike in Preston city centre, it's likely to get robbed whether it has "Pauls Bike" plastered down the side of it or not.
 
I've always said that if you don't want them stealing then don't put them up in the first place. The shots I put up on Flickr I'm not bothered if anyone wants to copy them. The ones I care about ie. important and money shots don't get put up anywhere and only go to the customer. The fun shots or example shots on my Flickr have only been put there so I can help people on here or other forums.
 
antihero said:
Of course it is. Whether your image is watermarked or not, as soon as it's uploaded to the internet it's at risk of being "used". If you leave your spanking new pushbike in Preston city centre, it's likely to get robbed whether it has "Pauls Bike" plastered down the side of it or not.
Click to expand...

Any possession you have is at risk. How much risk is another thing. Leaving a bike with no lock on is one thing, it's still stolen though. But what if you have a lock on your hypothetical bike and it still gets stolen, is it the owners fault because they left it on the street in the first place? :shrug:

Is the lock enough not to make it the owners 'fault'? What if they take the seat, and leave the frame and wheels locked up? What if they take the seats and wheels and just leave the frame locked up? If they then get the frame nicked, is it still their fault, because if they hadn't put it on the street it wouldn't have been there to be taken. :shrug:

Highlighting it when it happens, and the victim hopefully doing something about the thief, either just removing the stolen image, and/or getting financial recompense, brings the issue to the fore and promotes the idea that our images belong to us and have value, and is just not free because it is on the internet and easy to copy.

Or maybe people have come here for help with what to do about it. :shrug: I know when I had my image stolen from here I came here, and other forums, for advice, but me highlighting my situation also informed others here whose images had also been stolen by the same company. If I knew I was going to called/considered a moaner, I may not have bothered to post. :bang:


Just as if you don't put images on the internet they can't be taken = no problem. Not reading threads about people 'moaning' when they get their property stolen = no problem. :shrug:
 
redhed17 said:
Any possession you have is at risk. How much risk is another thing. Leaving a bike with no lock on is one thing, it's still stolen though. But what if you have a lock on your hypothetical bike and it still gets stolen, is it the owners fault because they left it on the street in the first place? :shrug:

Is the lock enough not to make it the owners 'fault'? What if they take the seat, and leave the frame and wheels locked up? What if they take the seats and wheels and just leave the frame locked up? If they then get the frame nicked, is it still their fault, because if they hadn't put it on the street it wouldn't have been there to be taken. :shrug:

Highlighting it when it happens, and the victim hopefully doing something about the thief, either just removing the stolen image, and/or getting financial recompense, brings the issue to the fore and promotes the idea that our images belong to us and have value, and is just not free because it is on the internet and easy to copy.

Or maybe people have come here for help with what to do about it. :shrug: I know when I had my image stolen from here I came here, and other forums, for advice, but me highlighting my situation also informed others here whose images had also been stolen by the same company. If I knew I was going to called/considered a moaner, I may not have bothered to post. :bang:


Just as if you don't put images on the internet they can't be taken = no problem. Not reading threads about people 'moaning' when they get their property stolen = no problem. :shrug:
Click to expand...

lol...i was actually agreeing with you in my post, although reading back I suppose it could be taken either way.

my rather rubbish analogy was just saying that my bike is just as likely to be stolen if it had my name all over it (watermarked?) or it didn't. The person that steals it it 100% in the wrong but doesn't care if it's someone elses property or not.
 
Personally I would be thrilled if anyone thought any of my images were worth pinching, only in my dreams am I that good!!
 
mattd85 said:
I would also like to know this
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html

I use the firefox extension.. right click and search any of your images..

Amatuer I might be but do care about the integrity of my images.. I have started to put my name on them as with every option to safeguard them ticked on flickr I still find them all over blogs etc.. Yes, I know the options.. Dont post on there etc etc, but more good has come from posting my photos on there than the irritants of tumblr, We heart it, Chinese websites etc.. :thumbs:
 
I have to say I can see why people would get annoyed by having their photos nicked especially if you had spent a lot of money in order to get that shot or expect to make money from it. But honestly if you aren't some big business or corporation or someone with lots of money who can afford to fight those who constantly do it, and are also one of those people who gets annoyed by people using artistic licence on your photos I don't see that you have any choice other than to water mark.

Yes in an ideal world everyone would ask before using other's images and yes in some ways the internet does make it an awful lot easier to steal other peoples images and by no means does watermarking me it will prevent others from stealing but at least if that's what you want at least you have tried.

Again those who don't want to add a water mark that's fine after all it is a personal choice. It does to a certain degree spoil the image and I'm pretty sure those who do watermark if they could get away without doing so they would do. At least make it smaller. But to say that it makes them unprofessional and amateur is wrong. A persons skill makes an image look amateurish not what they decide to overlay over the top in way of trying to prevent others making out it is theirs. Just remember to those few that will do so, but don't whinge when you've found your image is stolen ;)

I'm going get off my soapbox now and go crawl back under my rock, just grinds my gears sometimes what I read on here.

On a happier note I also live for the day when someone thinks my images are worth stealing although I do have a little while to go before I get to that point yet :D
 
MWHCVT said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one Tony :D
Click to expand...

I would really love to put my pics online without watermarks... but every pic without a watermark is as good as a lost sale... Its the differnce between a portfolio, a viewing for pleasure gallery... Or what I can only describe as my stock.. which i protect.... does that mean the pics or I am amatuer? :)
 
KIPAX said:
I would really love to put my pics online without watermarks... but every pic without a watermark is as good as a lost sale... Its the differnce between a portfolio, a viewing for pleasure gallery... Or what I can only describe as my stock.. which i protect.... does that mean the pics or I am amatuer? :)
Click to expand...

...and there's the point. Every market varies, whether it be B2B or B2C. Try telling equestrian event photographers that they shouldn't watermark their work (not that it makes a huge difference if they do!)
 
neil_g said:
small claims court doesnt have to be expensive, the fee to get the ball rolling scales with the cost being recovered:)
Click to expand...

Not quite so easy as that. If the Small Claims Court decides in your favour, they don't collect the money for you, or make any kind of contact with the other party, you then have to engage the services of a Bailiff (and pay him) to find the other party and try to collect your Fee.

As for keeping your pictures down to 800 or so pixels, nobody prints anything today, they want them for the Net where 250 Pixels longest side will do nicely. I would just keep them on my Hard Drive, a lot of people make the excuse they only use Flickr for storage, in that case make them private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top