John Sessoms wrote: >From: paul stenquist >> That should read "I can't imagine why anyone would lose any sleep >> over copyrighting itty-bitty web images. >> >> And I can't. There are many things worthy of our concern these days. >> This is not one of them. > >But, in my position - hoping to transition to making an income from >photography at some future point - do you think it's worth going ahead >and backfilling the copyright into the meta-data in my existing >unpublished catalog? > >Or, I guess turn the question around ... is there any reason I shouldn't?
Nope, there's no reason why you shouldn't. In fact, there's reason why you should: Not all images swiped from web pages are taken in deliberate theft. Many - most, I would wager - are taken in naive ignorance of copyright laws. The reason for embedding copyright information isn't to prevent image theft or to catch image thieves, it's to allow people further down the chain who *want* to honor copyright properly )or find the original photographer for other reasons) to contact you. That's why I always include copyright EXIF and a visible watermark in my photos. Not as a deterrent to thieves but as an aid to honest people who didn't see the photo in its original context. -- 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.
