| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2003 10:01:15 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
That all depends on the software and the printer. I can print a photo at 640 x 480 to 8 x 10 with excellent results. Although knowing that the printer has to be set a certain way, the photo printed twice on the paper and certain papers have to be used to make it work. But it is something done very frequently by galleries in viewing photo submission via cd roms. Also the some of the printhouses that make giclee prints use the same techniques in producing the enlarged digital prints that are now starting to appear in the galleries before they do the hand touch ups to each print. |
Your point is taken, that with a special process, you can get better quality prints from a 640x480 (than you would without the process). We are still not talking about the quality you'll get from a high resolution image.
The bigger issue here is, what are you suggesting? To quote your orginal post...
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
The idea of saleable prints would mean then the site is going to need to change the right click features to stop that ablity. Even if the sale of prints doesn't happen I would like to see that feature added. Then I wouldn't mind submitting my best work without the copyrighted corner |
There is absolutely no way to stop a person from being able to pull an image from the site. Disable right click? Next time you're on a site with disabled right click, try clicking your left click, then your right click very fast. 99% of the time, you get past it. Even if you successfully disable right click, view the source for the page, and you get the path to the image. Force referrals from dpchallenge.com, so you can't open it in a new window? What's the point... Press the print screen button on your keyboard, and you've got an instant, pasteable image for your favorite image editing program.
The point is that these prints are much, much higher quality than the low resolution submissions to this site, printed by a professional printer, on much better paper using a much better process. There's not much to argue with there.
Drew
Message edited by author 2003-02-18 15:04:05. |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:16:42 AM · #27 |
What I am wondering is how many others don't post the very best photos cause they can't copyright them. I know I don't post the best of my work cause of no copyright being premitted during the challenge. Although the copyright doesn't stop others from printing out the photos, it does keep them from being placed on another site without the photographers premission, which I have had happen to me with another site, and they were used in a very unbecoming way. |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:18:54 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
What I am wondering is how many others don't post the very best photos cause they can't copyright them. I know I don't post the best of my work cause of no copyright being premitted during the challenge. Although the copyright doesn't stop others from printing out the photos, it does keep them from being placed on another site without the photographers premission, which I have had happen to me with another site, and they were used in a very unbecoming way. |
I think you missed Drew's original response...
On your printable image, you can add a copyright message if you like...
|
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:25:38 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think you missed Drew's original response...
On your printable image, you can add a copyright message if you like... |
What I am trying to say is couldn't a copyright be added for the challenge even if it was giving rights to DPChallenge, and a modification was put in the submission rules stating that the poster owns all rights to the photo but to keep identity hidden during voting something such as DPC 2003 could be added to the bottom right hand corner of the photo. It would stop anyone from taking photos and using them without premission of the photo owner. I had an artistic nude photo stolen from a site I was previously associated with and it turned up on a pay site. I know those aren't a regular type of photo posted here but I also know because of that I don't post my best photos. |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:28:58 AM · #30 |
Where I thought you were going with this was something like this...
"Keyword searches on stock photo sites show that 'clouds' are very popular... Take a stock style photo that would apply to keyword Clouds"
... which is not a whole lot different then ...
"Take a picture of Clouds"
But it's the thought that counts :)
|
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:29:29 AM · #31 |
I don't understand the purpose of adding a © 2003 DPC to the image. I guess i'm not that concerned with people stealing my low res images. Like Drew said, if people are gonna steal work, they are gonna steal work... If it has a copyright notice on it, they could photoshop it out, especially if it was on the border of the image.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2003 10:30:50 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
What I am trying to say is couldn't a copyright be added for the challenge even if it was giving rights to DPChallenge, and a modification was put in the submission rules stating that the poster owns all rights to the photo but to keep identity hidden during voting something such as DPC 2003 could be added to the bottom right hand corner of the photo. It would stop anyone from taking photos and using them without premission of the photo owner. I had an artistic nude photo stolen from a site I was previously associated with and it turned up on a pay site. I know those aren't a regular type of photo posted here but I also know because of that I don't post my best photos. |
At the bottom of every page on this site: "All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission." There is also an entire section devoted to copyrights in the Terms of Use. If your image has been stolen from this site, you are very welcome to contact us about it. I imagine a copyright on the bottom of your image will be no more deterring for a porn site than any of the copyright statements already on the site. This seems like a much different issue than the 'print from low-resolution images' issue we've been discussing, though.
Drew |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 01:51:52 PM · #33 |
I put a copyright notice on the border of all my prints. Anyone who wants to steal my photo (I wish) can buy a 4x6 print for a total investment of maybe $2, scan it on their $200 scanner at 2-4000 dpi, and do what they will with it...
There is nothing in the copyright law which states the noice has to be ON the image. I'd say more an impediment to protecting your images is that, even if you want (and can afford) to sue for infringement, you must first have REGISTERED the work with the LOC...I can't afford to do that for all my images, can you? That is, applying the notice (anywhere on the page where the image is displayed) affirms your ownership rights, but only registering the work confers the right to recover damages. At least they are adding only a flat fee and not taking a percentage of the recovery...
As a completely separate solution, maybe the DigiMarc filter could be added to the list of allowed filters, which allows you to apply the copyright notice as an invisible "watermark" -- it is not supposed to affect the image appearance or quality.
Message edited by author 2003-02-18 18:53:20. |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 02:24:58 PM · #34 |
I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. But I have read the FAQ at the copyright office web site. As far as I can tell you own copyright as soon as you take the image. You don't have to do anything, it's yours until you assign it to someone else.
If you want to persue someone for infringment, then you have to register it, but you don't have to register every image that you take.
Copyright Office FAQ List
Message edited by author 2003-02-18 19:26:42. |
|
|
|
02/18/2003 02:27:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Printing an image from the 640 or smaller image on this site would produce pretty bad results.
|
That all depends on the software and the printer. I can print a photo at 640 x 480 to 8 x 10 with excellent results. Although knowing that the printer has to be set a certain way, the photo printed twice on the paper and certain papers have to be used to make it work. But it is something done very frequently by galleries in viewing photo submission via cd roms. Also the some of the printhouses that make giclee prints use the same techniques in producing the enlarged digital prints that are now starting to appear in the galleries before they do the hand touch ups to each print. |
What process do you use ? I'd love to know what it is so I could stop sending these multiMB files off to get printed and then could get equivalent quality from a 150kb JPEG. Would save me a load of money and time.
I tried, being the geeky, image processing engineer that I am, and I can get a pretty bad, okay if your eyesight isn't very good or you never look at it closer than 2 ft away 8x10 print using either fractal or vector interpolation to resize the image. I guess if people are happy with that kind of quality then they could steal a 640x480 version and resize it up to get an average to bad quality print, but I don't see how you can get much more - the raw information just isn't there for a larger or more accurate enlargement.
Message edited by author 2003-02-18 19:54:33. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 05:30:40 AM EDT.
