I have some photos i like to share but i am not sure how to do it.
For one, do you need or should do it with a license and if yes, which one.
Secondly, should you watermark them or is that not a good idea.
The reason of my question is just this, that i want to prevent someone making money of my photos. Not that they are great quality, but you never know really.
Thanks, i plan to make my photos available on kde-looks. Well, that was my idea at least.
Yes, you will need a license to implement this. Check out Creative Commons.
Creative-commons, perhaps? I see a lot of images licensed like that.
Edit: chief_stealt beat me by a minute 
Ok, i will check that out. Thanks already.
But one question remains. Is it recommended to watermark images, or is just a license enough.
Thanks already for the answer and the tip.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:06:02 +0000, yester64 wrote:
> But one question remains. Is it recommended to watermark images, or is
> just a license enough.
Two schools of thought on this.
First, if you watermark the image, depending on how you watermark it, it
can just be cropped. The watermark also affects the quality of the image
if it’s over the middle.
Second, if you do or don’t watermark it, that doesn’t prevent people from
using the image in violation of the license.
I participate in a graphics forum as well as OSF, and there have been
occasions where people’s artwork has been used commercially (or non-
commercially, even) without their permission or proper attribution -
ultimately, it comes down to someone seeing the image and recognizing it
as being uncredited (or improperly credited). A watermark would prevent
professional usage, but I have seen copyrighted images be cropped and
used in online articles, for example, without credit being given.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
True. It also raises the question of why people post images in the first place. I mean its one thing to post your family album to share with relatives and friends only.
Then to see one of your baby’s pictures in a magazine or something, one has a lawsuit, no question in mind.
But why would someone post to Flicker their copyrighted images? IMHO, a photographer, painter, other artist who wanted to show their copyrighted material for sale they’d post to professional web sites and galleries not to a Flicker? Unlike news articles sliced and diced for Yahoo, AOL, Google, etc. but copyright images, videos, music are different. Given music and video are highly pirated.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:36:02 +0000, tararpharazon wrote:
> True. It also raises the question of why people post images in the
> first place. I mean its one thing to post your family album to share
> with relatives and friends only.
> Then to see one of your baby’s pictures in a magazine or something, one
> has a lawsuit, no question in mind.
>
> But why would someone post to Flicker their copyrighted images? IMHO, a
> photographer, painter, other artist who wanted to show their copyrighted
> material for sale they’d post to professional web sites and galleries
> not to a Flicker? Unlike news articles sliced and diced for Yahoo,
> AOL, Google, etc. but copyright images, videos, music are different.
> Given music and video are highly pirated.
Well, they’d do it the same reason you want to: So people can see them
and use them for noncommercial purposes.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV, but I am a
copyright holder and have read about it.
Don’t forget that (at least in the US), there is an implied copyright on
everything that is created. If I create a webpage, it’s covered under
Title 18 USC (the US Copyright code). It’s more legally defensible if
you get an explicit copyright assignment from the US Copyright Office,
but it’s not entirely necessary.
What an explicit copyright assignment does is establish the date of
creation. That can be useful if things go to litigation, because a
registered copyright can be used to prove that an item was created at a
particular time.
With implicit copyright, however, it is much harder to establish the time
of creation, which means if something needs to be litigated, the burden
of proof can be harder to meet because the date of creation can be more
difficult to establish.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:49:54 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, they’d do it the same reason you want to:
Or I should say “the same reason yester64 wants to”, I didn’t notice that
I was replying to a different person in the thread.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Thanks for the reply. Yes, copyright for date not a problem.
Its the commercial vs non-commercial use thats in question. No offense but I don’t need to see Yesterday64’s wallpaper its on his PC right?
If he posts it as part of diagnostic problem I get to see it but he (and others) expose themselves to non-commercial use.
I think music is even more confusing if when an artist posts a few tunes they expect visitors play their music right? I guess artists could have a subscription web sites to hear their music or view their art but I’m still sort of stuck with don’t post stuff you don’t others to use.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:06:01 +0000, tararpharazon wrote:
> Its the commercial vs non-commercial use thats in question. No offense
> but I don’t need to see Yesterday64’s wallpaper its on his PC right? If
> he posts it as part of diagnostic problem I get to see it but he (and
> others) expose themselves to non-commercial use.
He may simply think it’s cool and want to let other people use it on
their personal desktops. That’s the point: He wants to let people use
the wallpaper for specific (noncommercial) uses. Whether it’s as a
wallpaper or just to admire the work, or to show off what he’s done.
He’d rightfully be unhappy if it suddenly became used as the cover for
Newsweek without attribution. They make money based on their content,
and if the co-opt that image as content, then he’s entitled to profit
from it (as the creator). He’s also entitled to control the distribution
of his image, and to specify what the image may and may not be used for.
That’s what copyright law is all about.
> I think music is even more confusing if when an artist posts a few tunes
> they expect visitors play their music right? I guess artists could
> have a subscription web sites to hear their music or view their art but
> I’m still sort of stuck with don’t post stuff you don’t others to use.
Yes, but in that case as well, you might have (for example) Metallica
post a track from their S&M album so people can “get a taste”. That
doesn’t mean they want it to be used by NBC as the theme song for the NBC
Nightly News (or for some other commercial purpose).
Hence, if they did that, their copyright notice could allow specific uses
and disallow others.
Enforcing those uses, though, is more than just documenting it. If
someone violates your copyright, you have to be willing to stand up for
your rights as the copyright holder. In fact, in some jurisdictions, if
you fail to do so, you essentially can undermine your own copyright by
setting a precedent that you don’t care what people do with it (or you
don’t care if they do something that you say you’ve specifically
forbidden).
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Thanks Hendersj for the replies. I understand sharing without credit or payment for commercial use.
You are aware of proposed changes to copyright laws, one of which makes it illegal to use a digital image even for non-commercial use without the consent of the copyright holder?
So, while I can build a photo album of movie posters, snapshots, actress or scenery images for myself I don’t want to be sued for copyright infringement, especially if I’ve avoided downloading any copyrighted images. And I think linking to the images instead of downloading is considered the same as downloading.
Well, these pictures are of my own creation. So its nothing what was taking from somebody else.
Anyway, i think i might just settle with GPL und GNU. I’ve seen that a lot on KDE-Looks.com.
I don’t seek any money for it. Just for fun and not sure if somebody even likes them. Hey, i am not that great of an artist.
Watermarking is interesting but its complicated in a sense. Have to play with that if i use Gimp again.
Who wants to download an image with an watermark and paste it on a desktop.
Ditto here, preaching to the choir, not a note or slice of talent! But I’m a great admirer of art work and I have accumulated a massive screensaver. So, despite my rantings I appreciate art posters and non-commercial use.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:06:01 +0000, tararpharazon wrote:
> Thanks Hendersj for the replies. I understand sharing without credit or
> payment for commercial use.
>
> You are aware of proposed changes to copyright laws, one of which makes
> it illegal to use a digital image even for non-commercial use without
> the consent of the copyright holder?
Actually, I hadn’t heard about that. But it’s a little odd, because
technically it already is illegal to use an image without consent of the
copyright holder. Generally, though, if someone posts something online,
it seems that unless there’s something that explicitly prohibits the
image (or content from a site) being used by someone viewing it, then the
usage is allowed.
So maybe that’s the change - the default assumption.
> So, while I can build a photo album of movie posters, snapshots,
> actress or scenery images for myself I don’t want to be sued for
> copyright infringement, especially if I’ve avoided downloading any
> copyrighted images. And I think linking to the images instead of
> downloading is considered the same as downloading.
I’ve heard the theory that linking = downloading (and read a little about
cases that are based on that). I think that’s quite silly, myself, but
that’s just my non-lawyery opinion.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:06:02 +0000, yester64 wrote:
> Well, these pictures are of my own creation. So its nothing what was
> taking from somebody else.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting that.
> Anyway, i think i might just settle with GPL und GNU. I’ve seen that a
> lot on KDE-Looks.com.
That seems an odd choice, because those are software licenses rather than
content licenses. I’d suggest looking at the various Creative Commons
options, as they’re much better suited to content that isn’t code.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Here is my first contribution.
Hope you like it.
Like i said, nothing special. But something i can share… maybe someone likes it.
Nice macro zoom.
Nice, yester. Post some more.
Its nice to hear that someone likes it.
Since the original are RAW i had to use showfoto to resize it. For some reason Gimp wasn’t able to read my images.
I will browse to my small collection and post more. I posted different resolution of this one. Hope it came out good.
There was namely another problem. The aspect. Since the originals are 4:3 it had ot crop it.
don’t want to post everytime i post something, i will put that in my profile.
But here is my link on kde-looks.
yester64’s contents KDE-Look.org