Apparently permission and attribution is important to some.I posted an image I had "lifted " from another site. An editor from another motoring page saw and asked ME if he could use it in one of his articles.I told him the source .I didn't see that image in the story.Either he could not or did not secure permission to use the picture. Most of the images I post I have either direct or tacit approval to use.Those commercial outlets or clubs I source images from would like to see an URL of their site along with their image. I don't mind.It exposes their activities to a broader audience even though some of it may be of a commercial nature.When we have businesses and clubs going away because of waning interest every little bit helps.There are those places on the web,like FB, where it says "share". I share all over the web. that share tile didn't say where I couldn't share ,now did it? You'll find that the web is a small place.You're going to find people here on on different boards.I have permission from a lot of folks to use their pictures.one gent lives in Wales and he posts to another board.So,I posted a rather lovely image here from him.Another gent who lives in England goes balistic because I posted that image supposedly only he has rights to use...So,how do you go back to the first guy and question his use?
I agree that in a perfect world, your "open source" take on this would be correct. But-if art (or any creation) enriches us, then the creator should at least have the opportunity/option/right to be enriched as well, with enrichment being defined by the creator, not the consumer. The music industry is packed with stories of guys who didn't receive the economic or even artistic fruits of their labors, as they were swindled by others. If you or anyone else wants to give the rest of us the fruit of your labor for free, (and your reward is simply the enjoyment of the creation and sharing), then we all say thank you for enriching us and yourself. But if someone is going to profit from said work financially, socially, or some other way, the originator should have the right of first refusal, and/or be credited, at least. That being said, old pictures and history are pretty hard to copyright, and we do have a collective history that is owned by us all. A thought-provoking article. I just attended a Walter Brueggemann lecture about "extraction economics". Interesting take on history. Lest forget the wise words of a wise man, "the love of money is the root of all evil."
The only way I can see it will protect your investment is if the person willing to do anything with the picture unethically is too lazy to take the watermark off.
Guess I had better add this disclaimer! If by chance I do take and post a picture that the owner of the object I happened to take the picture of be it a car, truck, motorcycle, bridge, piece of property whatever. ( First I'd be flattered) I do offer that owner an unwatermarked copy of said photograph. Joe
Only thing I have to say about this is the same thing they try to tell young girls. If you post a picture on the internet you have no control of how or where it is used and they never go away
People take other's images and make memes out of them. They are all over the internet. Plagerism? Theft? Ask me first. I might say yes. Good thread, Ryan. I hope people learn from this. Sent from my SM-G930T using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
From RYAN - post # 27 “Most of the photos we deal with were never protected by a copyright to begin with…” “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.” “So, given that... the copyright laws aren't really relevant to the conversation. None of these photos are actually owned by anyone.” So, does someone have to actually copyright their photos, for the protection laws to apply to an image? Or is ‘copyright’ somehow automatic? If I understand correctly, it’s not automatic. That’s why most photos we’re dealing with are not (copyright) protected?
When I had my agency, we water marked every PR photo after I found a certain manufacturer using my client's photos in his catalog claiming to have made the product. We also filed copyrights on all of our ads and catalogs in the agency name and/or the client's name. This was long before the digital age. Never the less, we took theft of intellectual property seriously. I see many of those ads and catalog pages show up here and quite frankly, I appreciate those posters sharing stuff that I put in the round file 35 years ago! Never in my wildest imagination, did I ever think that stuff would be of interest years later.
Read and understood. I agree with your position on all this, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I suppose it's understood, but watermarks and copyright are not the same thing. Watermarks might be seen as a "I own this" or maybe just a "for more information" sign depending on the watermark itself.
Well really glad to see this. As one who races and has pictures taken of my cars, I hate the watermarks shit, its my car and the photographer get all the credit for pushing a button, most times never even saying whose car it is, while I slave away week after week in the shop working on the damn car..........
Hello, It sometimes makes me a little irritated that some people use other’s photographs to post on a thread and take credit. But, when a ton of scanned photos somehow appear on a thread, how does one go about giving credit to those old photographers who actually took those shots? It is just not enough to say…”it is from another thread or so and so’s thread about….” Somehow, credit has to be given, profit or not. Maybe, cut out the one shot that shows what the thread is about and give credit. Otherwise, 10 scanned images with several in each scan gets lost… We are not in/on any threads to have a contest to see who can find the most images on the web and post them. Use your own photos if you have them or just one or two photos from the web to show something on a thread. Drag Roadsters…fine, post one or two and get some background information including who took the shot, where,what, etc. That makes any thread interesting. The vintage photo thread? Well, credit for those zillion photos has to start somewhere…give the photographers credit where it is due. Plus, information on those photographs makes the thread interesting and we all get more knowledge in our brains. We all know who spends a ton of time searching various sites for images to post…just look at the total number of posts… The thing is, photographers were in the hobby that turned into a business and once that business is over, credit for the shots still should be given regardless of the passage of time. It is probably too hard to actually search for photos that have credits on them, but most sites do give credit. It takes a little more searching than just copy and paste a zillion per post. Lets all support those photographers that went out to get those great shots, timely, historic, action, general, professional…they deserve some time in history. Jnaki
I do our car club's newsletter and often snag pics from the 'net. Our newsletter is not for sale and we make no money from it. If a photographer plasters a watermark over the image it does not get used and I don't contact the owner to buy a clean copy. So, the owner gets no money and no exposure. If a pic contains a small mark like the signature on a painting I can use it and the owner gets credit and some limited exposure.
Well said. It's also always bothered me when guys put their own name on the door of an antique race car that was raced by someone else....
Kudoes to Jimmy B for sharing vintage photographs that he has collected or purchased from collections. In vintage photos such as these it is not possible to know who was behind the camera and snapped the image. That is who has copyright attributed too automatically. When I see a photo is from the collection of Jimmy B, I understand it just as that. An attribution to his collection. It usually means quality information will follow. Thanks for all his photos. Don Montgomery paved the way with his books. He attributes photos from the collection of a person. Just my 2 cents.
The only time I've run into the necessity for watermarks, outside of Fleebay and Amazon, was a brief episode on a forum for my other hobby, car audio. Some douche was lifting build log pics and posting them on his FB page, and website, taking credit for the work, as advertisement for his own audio install shop. Can't recall how that ended. Not sure if they successfully got FB to pull the images, or if they had to threaten legal recourse (if any was possible).
It's sort of replaced the old "staples in the centerfold" problem, right? Anyhow. I do post photos on the "Vintage Shots..." thread; one time I put up some from a state archive and added a small "H.A.M.B. Vintage Shots" mark in the bottom left corner, because the photos kept getting reposted on the thread, often within a couple days (I recognized the cropping/enlarging/enhancement/restoration I'd done on the originals). Just trying to help keep it fresh and reduce the repetition. I - rightly - got called on the carpet for that by a few members, so I've never done that again (except on one photo I shot when I was a kid). So I'll post what I find, credit the source, thank the photographers, and hope you enjoy them (because I enjoy hunting for them! ).
Ryan...Who cares if someone wants to watermark their pics or not, its up to them, but I like your attitude about this. I am one that doesnt get to upset about much of anything anymore. In fact, the older I get the less I care. Life is tough enough now days, living in a state that is so diametrically opposed to my way of thinking, to let this kinda stuff bother me. great thread.
When I turned 18, Daddy took me and a friend of mine (also 18) to a bar for a beer. The place was near deserted with only a handful of people (which is how I like it.) My friend and I were admiring a pretty young lady at the end of the bar when the bar tender came over and in a rude and threatening manner told my buddy to quit ogling his wife. My Dad heard this, came over to where we were, leaned over the bar so he was right in the guy's face and told him "If you don't want anybody looking at her, you need to leave her at home." Nothing more was said. I think they call that "irrefutable."
Most of the time I see watermarks as unnecessary. Open source is good, I have a huge folder of images I right clicked with honorable intensions. I dig that pic, save. Here are two exceptions: 1) My wife used to be a child and family photographer. She shot digital. You paid her a session fee to get the pictures taken, then you paid her for product. After she shot your session, you would get a password to a digital gallery on her site with everything watermarked. When you made a purchase, you received a clean file or a print with no watermark. This is a common method and it seems fair. 2) I recently listed a car on the auction site that didn't sell. A couple weeks later, my images from the auction as well as my text turned up on someone else's cars for sale website with a different price and their contact info. Someone had copied my ad to scam people. They have at least 3 websites and hundreds of stolen ads. Now any car I list anywhere gets a big, ugly watermark containing my name and the site I'm listing on to prevent fraud.
Another technique used by the professional photographers instead of a watermark is to release only low resolution images. They are big enough to see on the internet but worthless to enlarge. Same technique used by many portrait photographers. If I was a professional photographer trying to feed my family that is what I would do. Charlie Stephens
While I find this a very interesting thread, various comments have my head spinning. I despise watermarks on photos. When I look at a photo I want to concentrate on the image and not be distracted. To me, a watermark should only be used by the person who took the photo. When you purchase a single photo or a collection, sure, the photo belongs to you, but you were not the photographer. Maybe I feel this way because I have no real skin in the game. I don't purchase anyone's auto photos and I don't download the work of someone else to post on a site. If I don't have a photo to contribute to a thread then I generally don't become a part of it. Why should I post some photographer's work? There are books, magazines and Google Images to check out if I want to see something in particular. The "vintage photos" thread holds no real enjoyment for me, as much as I like vintage photos. Again, I can research / hunt down that stuff. When I come to the H.A.M.B. I want to see what you fellows along with your parents and grandparents have photographed in your / their lifetime. And photos with no historical description are of little value to me. I enjoy having others see my photos. I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination and generally sell only to someone who wants an 8x10 of their car. If I run into someone at a car show or drag strip and know I have a photo of a particular car I'll strike up a conversation with the owner and offer to send an image by email, no charge. I've wanted to protect many of my images (especially as I've gotten better at shooting photos), and I've got some neat stuff, but I'm never going to get rich from them so why hoard them? That being said, I don't find it complementary to find my shots on YouTube as an introductory to a video or on other car sites without at least a bit of credit. Hell, if I'm damn near on top of a Bill Jenkins Pro Stocker in 1974 and get a couple of extremely good shots of it I don't want someone else taking the credit for them. As I said, I don't purchase car photos but I'm very interested in old rods and race cars. I've put out feelers on Craigslist for old Instamatic photos from back in the day. You know those 3 1/5 squares that look like you were standing in the next county when you took the shot, or have the front or rear clipped off. I enjoy cleaning them up, making them fun to look at and, if possible, saving the date they were printed in the border. After that I send the cleaned up images back to the owner. Instead of printing each one or letting them languish in a folder on the computer, I'll generally take twelve and print them as a group as an 8x10. I wanted to post an example but received a message that the image was too large. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes here.
There are as many opinions of the watermark or not to watermark as there are people. So in my opinion do what you feel you must. Joe
The Jalopy Journal
