[pov] Re: "anonymous" photographer & photo theft

  • From: "Viv Ilo E. Veith" <viv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:55:21 -0400

Yes, people can lift almost anything using screen capture.  However, most 
screen captures are at 72 ppi.  I do not know if the laptops John mentions 
below have upped their screen capture to 150ppi.  The point here is that screen 
capture is not at a high enough resolution to use for printing but it is plenty 
high enough to capture and repost on the web or send in an email.  

Viv Ilo E. Veith
vividlyclear.com





On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:34 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
>  
> 
> 
> 

Other related posts: