all you can really do is run your most frequently misappropriated images through www.tineye.com from time to time - or pay them to keep tabs on your entire archive for you...
2010/11/20 John Coyle <[email protected]>: > The only comment I would make is that it is very difficult nowadays to be > sure that your image has not been misappropriated: it is impossible to check > every publication, whether on-line or in print, for potential use. > Therefore, an intrusive copyright flash (although ideally not big enough to > spoil the viewing of the image), does at least go some way to protecting the > owner. > > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > CheekyGeek > Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2010 4:11 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks. > > A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a "big 'ol" > copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even more > impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the "C" > to stand for "Clueless" rather than "Copyright". > > I would suggest that people who do this do not truly understand the concept > of copyright. Only the smallest and most unobtrusive copyright mark is > needed to fulfill the legal obligation of notification/claim as seen on the > work itself. It seems to me that what those who use ginormous/intrusive > copyright symbols are exercising is not their copyrights, but their fear > that their images are going to be appropriated by others (which would be a > violation of copyright). They are, in effect, more worried about the > unauthorized dissemination of their copyrighted work. > This would indicate an ignorance of what rewards are available to the > copyright owner (and conversely, penalties to the copyright violator) when > your work is misappropriated. > > In addition to misunderstanding the concept and exercise of copyright and > severely reducing the income opportunities arising from their violation, you > are also making your images far less likely to be enjoyed by those viewing > them - damaging your image (in more ways than one). One might wonder why one > bothers to put their images online if they are going to act against their > own interests by doing so. In fact, the best way to assure no > misappropriation of one's images is to not put them online in the first > place. > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > My opinions are free, and worth every penny. > - - - > Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. > > -- > 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.
