Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Extant, and common even. Indeed, I've occasionally gotten a physical
> picture taken by a professional photographer (at my request) that
> commerical copiers (like the Kodak copiers at malls) refuse to copy due
> to the photographer having watermarked it.
>
> It's also built into PSP8.  Check out www.digimarc.com for example.
>
Interresting. I was sure to heard about it in former times. Thanks for the
link, i'll inform myself about this feature.

Shu.

Post a reply to this message

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

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.41efc770d4b68ebb3e51f4130@news.povray.org...
> And I find even the smallest copyright notice distracts and
> detracts from an image. Infringements seem rare, damage
> minimal and, as this thread shows, eventually noticed.

just thought I'd add my experience .... Not just POV images but photography 
seems to be fair game as well.

I have an antique shop and was checking our presence on the web (search 
engine ranking) and came upon a scenic shot I'd taken of the river that 
borders on our property. It was used as a background for a flash goodie. I 
followed up and indeed it was my photo, the person that used my photo was 
offended when I asked if it wasn't customary to ask the artists permission 
before commercial use. The whole thing left me feeling like I WAS THE BAD 
GUY!

To get to my point .... I think the web is rampant with content thieves, and 
is a free for all when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Not sure what can be done about it .... sorry for the rant.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

After a few inquiries, this is what has been established so far:
- At least several people whose work is present in the "artvif" galleries
were never asked for permission by the gallery's owner.
- In several cases, the attribution is wrong
- In several cases, the permission would not have been granted since the
images were copyrighted by 3rd parties. There are also a few commercial
works.
- The gallery's owner met briefly with at least one of the authors many
years ago, and apparently thought that this was enough to give him the
permission to present the images on his website(s). He also thought proper
to attribute the works of other people to them, and to present these works
in what looked like personal galleries.

In addition to the bogus attribution of Jaime's image, several persons have

having their work taken without permission, by having someone else's work
attributed to them (leading other people to think they were the actual
thieves), and by having their names associated to this dubious enterprise.
They are not happy with the situation, and the matter is being pursued, i.e.
nastygrams are on their way.

Thanks to Lightbeam and Marc Jacquier for uncovering this!

Gilles

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message