Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Flickr and the Photographer
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 103421" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>Musicians have been facing this for a while now. At least it's a little better for photographers because we can watermark our shared images in such a way that they can't be shared or reproduced without defacing the image or including the information. Then it's up to us to try and find it as it spreads. Do I care if someone likes my image on flickr enough to print it and stick it on their wall without paying for it? No. I'm a hobbyist so if nothing else the idea is flattering. I share my images for friends to see (it's the perpetual family slideshow) and for comments to learn from. I can see why it's much more an issue for the pro. I see no reason why anyone looking to make money in the field has images anywhere that is considered a "sharing" site, and why they don't watermark the crap out of their work. It sucks when people take your stuff, but I equate it to leaving the front door of your house unlocked. Anyone can walk in, and you hope that they're all decent enough that if they walk out with something of yours they at least leave you a note letting you know they have it. If they steal from you then it's your own doing - next time keep your door locked. You have less company, but all that's yours stays yours, even if no one knows you have it.</p><p></p><p>The internet has changed the dynamic around all media and information protection and copyrights. It's become so that the only people who can do a decent job at protecting their stuff are the ones who have already made enough money that they can pay people to make sure it doesn't spread once it's out there. It's no longer possible to come from nowhere and think you're going to make a lot of money producing art - some will, but it's a fluke. The only way to earn that living, as was mentioned, is the "value added" stuff. Teaching, writing books (that hopefully will not appear as pdf's on a torrent sight), lecturing, etc. The art has become, once again as it was decades ago, its own reward. If you can scratch a living out of it, all the better. But you better be in it for the joy of making it.</p><p></p><p>For me, as long as the site is allowing some level of protection, and isn't making changes to user agreements constantly threatening to make a profit off of what I give them for free - or pay them to store - then I'm OK with it. Otherwise it's just me and a screen saver.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 103421, member: 9240"] Musicians have been facing this for a while now. At least it's a little better for photographers because we can watermark our shared images in such a way that they can't be shared or reproduced without defacing the image or including the information. Then it's up to us to try and find it as it spreads. Do I care if someone likes my image on flickr enough to print it and stick it on their wall without paying for it? No. I'm a hobbyist so if nothing else the idea is flattering. I share my images for friends to see (it's the perpetual family slideshow) and for comments to learn from. I can see why it's much more an issue for the pro. I see no reason why anyone looking to make money in the field has images anywhere that is considered a "sharing" site, and why they don't watermark the crap out of their work. It sucks when people take your stuff, but I equate it to leaving the front door of your house unlocked. Anyone can walk in, and you hope that they're all decent enough that if they walk out with something of yours they at least leave you a note letting you know they have it. If they steal from you then it's your own doing - next time keep your door locked. You have less company, but all that's yours stays yours, even if no one knows you have it. The internet has changed the dynamic around all media and information protection and copyrights. It's become so that the only people who can do a decent job at protecting their stuff are the ones who have already made enough money that they can pay people to make sure it doesn't spread once it's out there. It's no longer possible to come from nowhere and think you're going to make a lot of money producing art - some will, but it's a fluke. The only way to earn that living, as was mentioned, is the "value added" stuff. Teaching, writing books (that hopefully will not appear as pdf's on a torrent sight), lecturing, etc. The art has become, once again as it was decades ago, its own reward. If you can scratch a living out of it, all the better. But you better be in it for the joy of making it. For me, as long as the site is allowing some level of protection, and isn't making changes to user agreements constantly threatening to make a profit off of what I give them for free - or pay them to store - then I'm OK with it. Otherwise it's just me and a screen saver. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Flickr and the Photographer
Top
