Either photo.net or the Pentax Gallery. Probably photo.net, because
the shot appears larger there, and I know that both photo.net and
flickr are common sources of free photography. The art directors I
worked with most recently at Doner Advertising used flickr and
photo.net on a regular basis as sources for comp photos. It used to be
that stock houses, which permit comp downlading, were the primary
source, but the photo sites are now superior in many ways.
Paul
On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Any idea where it was taken from ?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message ----- From: "PN Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Workflows and Protection
I've found that unauthorized use of my images has only helped me
gain exposure. Frequently the unauthorized user provides at least a
credit. I think that making images small and marred by copyright
notices only hurts one' promotional efforts in the long run. But
that's just my opinion. I do demand payment if one of my images
appears in a medium that is obviously part of a commercial
venture, but that's rare. Most pilfered images appear only in
personal and non-profit sites or are used merely for comping. I
also should point out that when an image is pilfered for ad
comping purposes, it may well be purchased later. But if it's so
small or disfigured that it can't be used for comping, the art
director will pass it up.
Here's an example of an unauthorized use of one of my photos that
I just discovered. Not it has a credit. I didn't complain. I just
smiled:
http://koah.over-blog.com/article-17859115.html
By the way, does anyone know what this site is all about? I assume
the language is French?
Paul
On Dec 10, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
Howdy, folks,
I'm in the process of trying to automate the end-phase of my photo
workflow. That is, the portion after I've pulled the image into
Photoshop [Elements] or something and gotten it cropped and
adjusted "just so".
And that's gotten me to thinking relatively deeply about things
that may not yet admit deep thinking. So, I'm going to throw
some ideas out to the "PDML At Large" and see what comes back.
I want to provide myself some recourse against unauthorized
reproduction. So I'm thinking about several technologies and
processes to do that. In the past, my "attempts" have largely
centered around providing images on the web that are too small
(in resolution terms) to be of any real use outside the
"Webisphere", and not caring about uses within that environment.
I'm still planning to pursue that same strategy for the stuff I
make available to the world at large. Nothing more than, say,
800x600 pixels, for example. Put my copyright in the EXIF/IPTC
metadata. "Brand" a watermark visually into the image. Stuff like
that.
But now it's looking like I can actually make some money from at
least some of my photographic endeavors. So, I want to afford
myself some more, not really protection, but recourse, ass
coverage, whatever. Increase my ability to "prove" that I
originally created an image, after that image has been cropped,
resized, and otherwise mangled.
So I'm thinking about several aspects of deterring unauthorized
use. Phase one is to "brand" the images with a low-contrast
modification that imposes a notice visibly on the image, and keep
the published resolution "impractically" low. So, just how
"visible" is too much in a watermark? We're only talking about an
800x600 image, after all. Does anyone have any experience with
the "pay-to-play" image watermarking services?
I'm also thinking about embedding additional data via
steganography. Does anyone have any pointers or information about
creating a "proper" stegano-embeddable image that's not going to
either detract from the top-level image or be "too detectable"?
Should I think about multiple stegs, with a different data set
each time? Just how resilient are stegs in the face of image
modifications like crops, resizes, and replacement of the "brand"?
I'm also thinking about "shaving" every published image so that
none of them have the outside 1-10% of the image. Theoretically,
if I suspect unauthorized use, this should help me prove
original ownership. But, when do I shave them? Immediately
after capture? Immediately prior to publishing a particular
rendering? Several times in the middle of the workflow?
Discuss ...
:-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
above and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
