[pov] Re: "anonymous" photographer & photo theft
- From: Michael Elenko <michael.elenko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:07:22 -0700
Rondi,
Sure you can capture anything on a screen. The value of what you've captured
depends on what you are going to do with it, and what is technically possible.
So as a photographer you've got to minimize the risk, while still reaping the
gains of easy visibility.
If one understands image resolution, and what can come of it, it can help guide
choices.
The statement that "most screen captures are at 72 ppi" is basically
inaccurate. Images don't have an inherent ppi, but they do have a Width x
Height in pixels. PPI (pixels per inch) is only relevant here regarding the
quality of a print at various output sizes. It's really more useful to use
pixel Width X Height in sizing and evaluating your images.
The whole PPI (or DPI which as a misnomer makes things even more confusing) is
easy to misinterpret, probably because Photoshop has that Image Size resolution
box that tends to default at 72 PPI. Which is meaningless without looking at
the document size output dimensions.
For example: Let's say I upload an image of 1200 x 920 pixels to a site.
Photoshop shows that at 12.778 W X 16.667 H at 72 PPI. In reality, a 13x17-in
print needs a resolution of about 180 ppi to have a hope of being good. And the
rule of thumb is that the smaller the print, the higher your PPI needs to be
because people can stick their eyeballs that much closer to smaller prints.
So using this example, what size image would hit the magic 300 PPI target? Be
sure to uncheck the Resample Image box, type in 300 in the PPI box, and one
will see that a 3x4-in image would print out nicely.
Let's further say that the site showing my 1200 x 920 pixel image uses the
transparent gif thing, and that the image appropriator isn't smart enough to
dig into the source code. So they use a screen capture. That screen capture
will never add pixels to the original image. It may come close to the original
size of that image. So I got a 916 x 1159 pixel image from the screen grab. A
print from that at 300 ppi would be 3 x 3.9 inches.
As a photographer if I'm uncomfortable with giving that away, then the solution
is to reduce the size of my original uploaded image. There is zero need to
upload high resolution images to the web in an uncontrolled context, unless you
want to give away your shots (and sometimes that's OK). The reality is that an
image with 640-700 pixels on the long size will meet the requirement of filling
up a computer screen on a webpage with enough detail to look good.
As a photographer, you can allow an image appropriator to have a screen shot,
as there is only about 25 cents worth of hard value there, but they are not
going to get a decent print out of it. A screen grab of my 700 pixel image will
yield a image of 1.5 x 1-inch for printing at 300 ppi. Go for it I say.
Ultimately you've got to balance the risk of giving away $.25 per screen grab
with the benefits of having your work (and maybe name) seen by others cheaply.
ME
For example,
On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Rondi Lightmark wrote:
> Michael and Viv: doesn't a screen capture make the transparent gif useless? I
> had someone who wanted to feature
> my work on her website and promised me that she used the gif with all the
> work posted. But a simple screen capture
> showed her that she was wrong.
>
> John re Facebook: Yikes. When I think of all of the photographers (me
> included), that have a page to promote their work on FB. . .
>
> Rondi
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:07 AM, John Sage wrote:
>
>> On 11-10-26 09:09 PM, Michael Elenko wrote:
>>> Thanks Rondi for initiating a very engaging thread, and thanks everyone for
>>> building on it.
>>>
>>> Viv, it's great you are being conscientious. Having a transparent GIF
>>> layer over an image is the approach used by the Nature Photographers
>>> Network on their high quality website. That along with a watermark is
>>> pretty standard. It's great you are being conscientious.
>>>
>>> John's advice to embed one's name/copyright in the EXIF and ITPC metadata
>>> fields is very smart and easy to do. All my images imported into Lightroom
>>> have that performed automatically.
>>
>> I've pretty much "standardized" at 640 pixels longest dimension @ 150 ppi.
>> Why that? After some research there are modern devices (some laptops,
>> particularly some mobiles) that use a screen resolution higher than the old
>> classic 72 ppi.
>>
>>
>>> I guess the degree of image protection should be correlated with how one
>>> views the value of their images. And let's face it, the monetary value of
>>> photographs have dropped phenomenally.
>>
>> I'm pretty active on Facebook and there's two things I've noted there.
>>
>> 1) Facebook strips out any copyright data from the EXIF data -- in fact they
>> seem to re-write the EXIF data completely, and
>>
>> 2) Facebook has a breathtakingly draconian (although maybe not unusual)
>> clause in its "Terms of Service":
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
>>
>> 2. Sharing Your Content and Information
>>
>> "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you
>> can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.
>> In addition:
>>
>> 1) For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos
>> and videos (IP content),
>>
>> -> you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your
>> privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive,
>> transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP
>> content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). <-
>>
>> This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless
>> your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
>>
>>
>> "...you specifically give us ... a non-exclusive, transferable,
>> sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that
>> you post..."
>>
>>
>> mkay...
>>
>>
>> - John
>> --
>> John Sage
>> FinchHaven Digital Photography
>> Box 2541, Vashon, WA 98070
>> Email: jsage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Web: http://www.finchhaven.com/
>> Cell: 206.595.3604
>>
>> pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/pov
>>
>
> Rondi Lightmark
>
> Resolute Imagination is the Beginning of all Magical Operations -- Paracelsus
>
>
>
>
Michael Elenko
Eye In The Triangle Photography
206-226-3315
Other related posts:
