Ryan submitted a new blog post: Watermarks... An Opinion Post... Continue reading the Original Blog Post
It can be a sticky situation, but in general it really bothers me when someone watermarks a photo that they clearly didn't and couldn't have taken. If you shot the photo or it's a family member that's entrusted you with its preservation, that's cool and I can sympathize.
Thanks Ryan for adding some clarity to this issue. I post alot of historic stuff and otherwise. I share it why...because we aren't getting any younger around here and if that picture can bring a smile and thought to any of you I feel it matters. I also give credit as best as I can because it is in respect to those involved.
We have become a society of those who major in the minors, want too much for too little effort, and are over-concerned about our well-being above any others... a young carpenter's son had a good bit to say about that some years back. Thank you for having the right attitude, Ryan!
Very interesting subject and one I've often been curious about. If I post a photo on a forum, I try to give credit to the original photographer if I know who it is. I know that doesn't address the subject of watermarking per se for sure. I've often wondered if someone posts an "unclaimed" photo gleaned from the internet what exactly are their legal responsibilities? I was under the impression that unless you are using someone else's image for financial gain that you aren't breaking any copyright laws. Sorry if this is divergent from your post, Ryan.
Here,here ~ I agree with you 100%. I have posted & re posted hundreds of photographs since embracing the internet and have a unlimited wealth of images to chose from. I don't have a problem with the photographer watermarking his work,their are several guys here that mark their work,I do have a problem with Joe Blow watermarking anything that he didn't do. Artist fraud? Plagiarism? it should not be taken lightly. I remember a line that at the bottom of the page. HRP Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in.
Ok, maybe I'm the only one curious, but can we see the photo? Or was it the opening photo to your post that was the picture in question?
I'm not on Facebook, so I didn't see it... But I believe the featured image above is it... If not, I'm sure someone from Facebook will come along and correct me.
I don't know if Ryan coined this line originally, and it really should not be taken lightly but I laugh every time I see it.
Totally agree with you on the subject. It gets real hairy anymore. I despise watermarks. I think they absolutely ruin the integrity and emotion of a photograph. Especially when the photographer uses an atrocious font that doesn't even relate to the image. I refuse to mark my photos, even though its burned me in the past when people "forget" to credit the source.
Since this is an opinion post, And I always have one of those. lol Frist let me say, I don't do Face Book or any of the other sites, I only post here on the H.A.M.B. But I do like, You Tubes and Images of, or photos of, { Hot Rods}, and { Customs}. The best part of this site are all the old vintage photos. Thanks Ryan and everyone else for taking your time to search the old inter web for them. I have taken lots of photos and drew lots of pictures, of Rods and customs over the years. I have never shared them with anyone before the H.A.M.B. As for my Post, please fill free to use any of them for whatever you would want too. It has always just been just a hobby for me. And just fun to share them here. So Thanks everyone. Ron...
Well put. The only thing I would add is... The only problem that I have is people trying to "sell" images that aren't theirs.
I think Jimmy rules... Love the guy... But yeah, I don't think he needs to/should. My opinion though. His differs... and I don't think ANY less of him because of it. In fact, I applaud him for liberating those photos... I mean, there are all sorts of folks out there that watermark. AHRF comes to mind... I don't think they should either. Not unless the source actively asks for it. My point to all of this is simple: There's no really money in owning vintage images. Anyone that's ever done a book featuring them will tell you that. The value in these images is in their educational merit more than anything else... And the goal for all of us should be to get them out there and get them seen and get the original photographer the credit he deserves.... To me, the watermark distracts from all that. But this is very much a personal thing. I don't watermark any of the vintage images that I "own" simply because I don't feel like I have the right to do it.
Indeed this is a personal issue. Never had to deal with anything like this until a car of mine was photographed. The photographer (artist) did the work without any pay from me. Therefore, he owns the rights to the images. He has since sold the images to pay for his craft and that is okay with me. Since then, the car shows up in media here and there. Ryan, I think that you being comfortable about your images showing up here and there is cool as it supports the hobby and therefore benefits the J-Journal.
I get the need or desire for some to watermark their images, but I also appreciate the sharing of images here on the HAMB. A lot of you guys put a tremendous amount of work in producing and providing them to us for our education and enjoyment. And even the images that have been published, scanned, and posted a hundred times before, it's great when guys select and collect just the right ones for a particular thread. Then we can immerse ourselves into a thread, rich with historic images for an education found nowhere else. Thanks! And that photo... I don't usually like 'people' in the frame obscuring the image of the car, but these guys! It's like they've planted their asses on that bitchin' low-slung 'T' saying 'Look what we did!' Cool...
I really don't mind if someone shares photos I took myself, I take it as a complement. I am not a professional photographer so it's no big deal to me but don't say a picture I took is your work. As for old photos I always thought it was public property after a certain amount of time. I guess there is a big difference if you are selling them for profit also.
Most of the photos we deal with were never protected by a copyright to begin with, but here are the basics: For photographs created after 1988, you (or your heirs) own the copyright for 70 years after your death (unless you have transferred it in writing). After that time, the copyright falls into the public domain; anyone can use the photos in any manner that they choose. For a period of time before 1988, copyrights expired 50 years after the copyright owner’s death. Before then, the laws dealing with the length of copyright protection changed quite frequently. The chart found here may be helpful in determining the applicable duration of copyrights for works established at various times. So, given that... the copyright laws aren't really relevant to the conversation. None of these photos are actually owned by anyone. That's why the Library of Congress handles their media the way that they do. And that's also why film is so dear to me. You can't protect an image forever, but you can protect the ORIGINAL slide/negative/print forever. There's only one original... right? And I get people buying/selling original prints/negatives/slides. I totally get that. In fact, I've spent a shitload of money in the last 25 years buying slides and negatives. But I don't at all get buying scans and reprints of those same photos. Or watermarking them for that matter...
i didn't know this was a "thing". people actually take other peoples photos and water mark them? i guess to resell? pathetic criminal poser. in my opinion, if it is on the internet, it's fair game. if it has a water mark it has to stay on the photos/image, still fair game unless you make money with it, the said money belongs to the water marker [markey? maker? wakermarkerownerguy?] .
No. I don't think people are stealing photos to resell them... That's not really a thing as far as I can tell. And I don't consider any of the folks I'm referring to as crooks... or even as poorly intentioned. What people/publishers do, however, is obtain a photo that they didn't take or (in my opinion as well as the court's) own and then watermark them in order to gain credit for finding/publishing them.