I don't watermark, but that doesn't mean that you (or anyone else shouldn't).
I'm in the "You should only watermark images when you think it will deter some unscrupulous asshole from stealing them" camp ... although it doesn't seem like it actually does deter them. I don't watermark the rare PESO images I share via Flickr, although I do sometimes include a signature with a copyright notice. But I also usually don't post images larger than 1024 pixels on the long side there. On 9/30/2015 3:36 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
With recent discussion about pictures getting taken by unscrupulous individuals and passed off as their own, or being used in part of an image etc, what is the view of watermarking images that are posted by folk here? The views I've read seem to vary; those in the 'no' camp because you should only be displaying a low res image and that a watermark distracts your eye. The 'yes' camp are equally persuasive in that it immediately tells someone that it is owned and who by. I'm starting to take more pictures again and I think it's about time I had my own account again somewhere, and I'm trying to work out which way I want to go with watermarking images. I can't say that looking at those with watermarks gives me any problems or distracts from what I should be looking at. Is there a right or wrong or simply a choice? Malcolm
-- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- 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.
