I tend to render my signature as a part of the scene, e.g as
a carving in a wooden table, if I can.
see e.g. http://members.ams.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/ballon.tif
Of course one can use photoshop to remove it, but that would take
some time. (there is a story with this image, one day I hope to
find the time to tell it in p.b.i or find time to build my website)


Gilles Tran wrote:

> news:41efb615$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on
> 
> images,
> 
>>wouldn't you think so?
>>Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(
> 
> 
> In the incident related here
> http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3C4048fb4a%40news.povray.org%3E
> the "thief" erased the copyrights, or pasted his own name over the original
> ones when he couldn't do otherwise. So, no, putting a copyright doesn't
> technically protect the image. For this you need giant, defacing copyright
> notices like the ones Zazzle puts on the large size pics.
> 
> However, the presence of the copyright forced our thief to deface the images
> to assert his "ownership", at least by removing the names of the original
> authors. This was a clear proof of bad intent since he couldn't claim it to
> be a mistake. Because of this, we had no trouble convincing his school's
> administrators that he was guilty of something more serious than uploading
> copyrighted material and being forgetful about attribution.
> 
> So my opinion about copyright notices (or more precisely about visible
> signatures) is that they at least can act as a deterrent for small-time
> thieves, and, when they don't, they can make the case clearer, not legally
> speaking, but for third parties like website admins, school admins etc.
> 
> G.
>

Post a reply to this message