Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Someone using your 1000 pxls for reproduction!!!


celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 6:02AM
Maybe!!!

I have been looking around the forums, but clearly missed out on any thread regarding the risks of putting up a 1000 pixel image that can be simply copied and sold en masse as postcard images or even small calenders.

Genuine Fractals has made this a risky business has it not?

I would be interested to know what those who take such splendid photos out there think of this?

Personally when I look at an untouched (virgin!) 1000 pixel photo I feel it is so vulnerable... just waiting to be copied and churned out of some production line...

Am I alone in being concerned about this?

Happy New Year 2005 to Everyone by the way!

Tim

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

agoreira 11 6.0k Wales
1 Jan 2005 6:16AM
As soon as you put your shots on the net, you run the risk of having them stolen. If you wish to share your shots with the world, looking for compliments, you may be "sharing" in ways you never intended! Wink You're not alone in being concerned, but most have accepted that this is a downside of the net, that's there's not a lot you can do about it. Even with 1000px you can still keep the file size down to ensure they will not get a decent print from it. Or stick at 500px if you feel safer. Wink I have not looked at very many of the 1000px shots, but of those I have, I think a lot look better at 500px, not sure if it is the software or what, but some look quite pixelated at 1000px. Anyway, take it as a compliment that someone thinks your shots are worth stealing! Wink Not everybody has that problem.

Frank
chrisrudland 11 156 United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 7:18AM
(abwhitt) Frank makes a good point about picture size and quality, my larger pictures sit on my PC at 1000x800 for example and when processed average about 490KB - 550KB in jpeg format.

The actual requirements of uploading large on epz are limited to 200kb so mine have to be saved for web at about 67% and look fairly pixelated as far as I am concerned, however on my own web site where I upload them at a higher file size all I can really do is watermark them.

Tim, not that I think people want my pictures and I understand what your saying, the risk is there if they really want to thieve them, feel free to download one of my larger uploads and try a print, I am sure the quality will be s**t at A3 size.

Chris
andytvcams 12 10.4k United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 7:32AM
You can only put up a 1000 pixel image if your a member of e2,and even then you can restrict the size,so only e2 members see it at 1000 pixels.
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
1 Jan 2005 9:17AM
If someone steals your photo and it appears as a postcard you would, hopefully, still have the original with all the exif data so you could prove the image was yours and hopefully sue them for copyright.
wotashot 11 2.2k
1 Jan 2005 9:23AM
Do you think it is sensible to restrict viewing of 1000 px images to e2 users only, how many e2 mambers are there currently on the site and will the images get as much exposure???
digicammad 11 22.0k 37 United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 9:44AM
If you don't want to risk your shot being stolen don't put it up. Restricting viewing to e2 members only is no guarantee that it won't be misused. Okay, e2 members can be more easily tracked, but the stolen shot has to be spotted first.

Personally, not having any false belief that I am good enough to make a lot of money from my photos and doing very little to actually try and disprove it, it doesn't bother me. In fact if I found one of my photos had been stolen I would be more flattered than anything.

Ian
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
1 Jan 2005 9:48AM
So, lets say for want of argument, someone steals one of my shots and runs a postcard from it, highly unlikely as postcard companies are easily traceable and I've lost 90.
I'll live.....and sue 'em later.
andytvcams 12 10.4k United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 9:50AM
Go get em Keith.
bppowell 13 2.1k 2 England
1 Jan 2005 10:04AM
I have only managed to load one image at 1000ppi, the 200k file size forces me to reduce the size on nearly all the images I upload, or I would have to use a compression ratio of 8 or 9 to meet requirements. Saying that I think I am quite safe regards someone steeling my imagesSmile

Barry
celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 10:17AM
1000 pixels will do very nicely if you want an A5 image or smaller to reproduce (even at 200k). Many postcards and commercial flyers are printed at a quality that leaves a lot to be desired anyway! If you think there is noone out there hunting for cool images to use on (cool!) websites like this then you would be kidding yourself!

If someone copies and mass produces your image on another continent, you might never be aware of it and might not even be able to sue them, besides it seems to me very inconvenient to have to go around tracking down people who have copied your images and taking them to court!

If this was not a serious issue, then why do all the stock image sites on the net protect their images so heavily with watermarks that almost completely obscure the image even at 300 pixels?

An example here...

Pete, any chance of including the option of automatically adding a very faint watermark to images that have been uploaded at more than 1000 pixels?

I think this would be very appealing to professional photographers using the site. Perhaps a faint grid or something would do the job and save a lot of time and concern... to some people...

Those that don't care either way could just leave out the watermark option.

I know that we can add watermarks ourselves and I'm sure people will start to do this anyway eventually, but it would be a cool feature on an already excellent site.

Cheers,

Tim
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Jan 2005 10:35AM
Perhaps this e2 thing should have a 'health warning'!

LMAO!! Grin






........ just kidding! :O)
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
1 Jan 2005 12:14PM
Tim, we don't have pictures bigger than 1000 pixels and I feel the watermark spoils the photo. Thieves can just clone that out anyway!
celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
1 Jan 2005 2:58PM
I can understand the aesthetic loss issue Pete and perhaps it's just too much trouble to set up anyway (I certainly wouldn't know how to automate that into a website!).

The cloning excuse doesn't really stand up to practice, in fact it is extremely difficult to clone out a good watermark, and really not worth the effort and damage it can do to the original version.

I hope this forum topic will make some people more aware of the vulnerabilities involved in putting up an unwatermarked 1000 pixel image on the internet at least.

At the very least it might even be an idea to put a 'health' warning on the upload page for e2 members as Carabosse so kindly suggested?

If anyone would like to see what can be done with your 1000 pixel photo, then please take a look at Chris Rudlands photo, which, with his permission, I have copied and enlarged using Genuine Fractals...
here...

Let me know what you think Chris and I will take this page down as soon as you give me the word! I noticed that on your own (excellent) website even your enlarged samples are only 600k and they have a watermark protecting them, so don't you think we should be keeping the same standards here?

Regards all,

Tim
Denise 13 279
1 Jan 2005 3:15PM
Tim, I am amazed at how much detail you have managed to keep in this 1,000 pixel image. We only tend to think of GF being a tool to enlarge our own images, NOT someone elses. It does provide food for thought!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.