New watermark test.

I just spent a few hours developing some new watermarking code that improves on the old system.

Check out the picture on this thread for an example of what an image with my new code looks like.

The nice part of it is that it is intrusive enough so that the image is basically useless to a would-be thief.

The bad part about this is that it's fairly intrusive to the rest of us who just want to view the images.

Well, should I make the change and make this the new copyright image for all pictures on DG?

dave

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"eyes"

I should say, also, that this is in response to a valued member E-mailing me this morning asking me to remove her pictures from the Plants Database. Dozens of pictures will be removed. My goal is to provide a vehicle for this community to continue sharing their information and pictures in a safe and friendly environment.

dave

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we lose the quality for ourselves, we might as well not have the photos.
I don't have a scanner or digital camera, but I do enjoy the photos so very much. It's such a problem, I know, and I hate that it is, but when we had an eight party line we didn't throw out the phone. This is one of the necessary evils of the web at this stage of technology.

But I am impressed with the effect of this sample. It certainly does make it known where the photo was found.

But Dave, It covers the entire Pic...........is there someway instead of encompassing the whole pic.......maybe you could run it vertically off the side, or horizontally across below middle of pic or something that wouldn't interfere so much with viewing??? What a dilema!!!!!!

"eyes"

I really like the idea of a watermark, but not in this form. I mean, that makes it yucky to even use for personal use as a wallpaper. And I really would like to use that picture of you and your prize fish as wallpaper, too. ;)

Isn't there a happy medium?

And what about a right-click prohibition of some sort? That would keep your average Joe from copying an image and using it.

Eyes, we already put a copyright message on the lower-right corner, and it clearly does not solve the problem. People can just crop out that corner and the image is left undamaged.

I'll repeat: when people start telling me they want their images removed from the site, I start to get concerned. You want the pictures, but you don't want the watermark. Well, without the watermark, --some members will not contribute photos anymore--. I personally love to see all the pictures - it's the first thing I check in the morning and the last thing I look at in the evening. Dozens of pictures are posted each day, and they are an awesome feature of DG. I don't want to lose it.

What if we made a preference option? Pick the kind of protection you want (including none) and then every time you post, the mark is added.

This way, the most paranoid among us can use the type shown above, and the average person can stick to the current corner message, and the few who just don't care can simply not have a copyright at all.

??

dave

gardenwife: tiG is by no means a computer expert, and she very easily demonstrated in the past that the right-click does ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent image theft. Absolutely nothing. Hence, I will not cripple the website (I use the right-click all the time) for no reason at all.

Yeah, I got to fiddling around with a site which did the right-click thingie and figured that out right after posting. The screen capture works very easily, true.

Well, I did just disable right click on the Plants Database, to showcase what I'm talking about. Go try to steal an image - it won't take long.

dave

What about something like this, a translucent layer superimposed over the photos? This is what I was thinking about when I thought watermark: http://www.shortcourses.com/how/protecting/protecting.htm#Digital%20Watermarks

And how do I create this kind of watermark, automatically, on the webserver? Do you have a PHP script that I can look at to show me how to do it?

You don't, because it doesn't exist. These incredibly awesome invisible/semi-visible/transparent watermarks really do rock - but they require things like Photoshop. I cannot use photoshop automatically through the server, so it is simply -not- an option. :(

And downloading each image one by one and running them through photoshop, and then re-uploading them isn't an option, either.

dave

Dave, I think giving the member the option of type of Protection is a good idea. Probably the only feasible one, I too enjoy all the pictures!!! And I sure would hate to see the site lose any of them.

Well, I know nothing about PHP script and the stuff you use. It was just a suggestion, I was trying to help, and I'm sorry it won't work.

A preference option may be the only way to go, until someone develops a server-based solution that creates those fancy translucent watermarks. That takes the responsibility off of the DG admins and puts it into the hands of the members. They can choose the level of protection they want.

I like what you did in the PDB.........popped right on up there ..........the disclaimer, and the fact that no one's getting those!!

"eyes"

I just took a look over there after reading your post, Eyes - that is cool, Dave. I think something like that serves as a good first line of defense, because not everyone knows the ways to get around it. At any rate, it sure doesn't hurt anything, you know?

And an honest person, who really didn't understand copyright laws would difinitely be discouraged, and well hopefully some of the neer do wells!

"eyes"

I just want to make people comfortable with the site...

dave, you do whatever makes you comfortable. It's not necessarily paranoid if people are stealing your photos, it means they are some of the best photos and best plants. Maybe preference is the way to go for now. Maybe later something else will come along and be the best answer for all.

I think some of my photos are used somewhere in internet without my permission. If I have ever used some other's photos I always have asked him/her first. I think the best way to be sure no one uses your photos is not to upload them to internet. :/

I don't mind this kind of watermark at all although it does spoil the look of the thing a little but it's understandable when peoples prized images get stolen. I like the idea of a choice. Difficult task you have here Dave.

I'm in the happy position of being a poor photographer but it's not just pics that are stolen. On several occasions in the past I've found snippets of posts and even longer pieces I've written on several sites, used elsewhere. I can recognise my own writing style anywhere. It's annoying and I can't prove anything but it happens all over the place not just on the net.

If everyone took the view that the only way to protect copyrighted material is to never release it to the public, we would not have the masterpieces in photography, art, music, and cinema that we all enjoy and enrich our lives by viewing or listening to.

Let's face it, there are (legitimate and illegitimate) copies of every famous work of art all around us. I would prefer to have it thus, than to think I would never get to see a masterpiece painting (or even a photograph of one) because the artist was afraid someone would copy his/her work. And let's be realistic: most of us aren't in the same talent league as the Old Masters :)

Maybe I'm being too blase, but I'm trying to put this in perspective. This issue started (as best I can tell) with PoppySue sharing an example of copyright infringement. She didn't do it to create an environment of fear, but as a learning tool - those who didn't know what infringment entailed could get an upclose glimpse of a real-life example.

If/when you find someone copying your work without your permission there are two actions you should take (IMHO):
1) be flattered because it means your work was good enough to catch someone else's attention; and
2) contact them and work with them to get credit for it, or demand they remove it.

I'm deeply disappointed and troubled that anyone would ask to have their photos removed from the PDB - I hope they'll reconsider. I firmly believe the positives outweigh the potential risks. A few weeks ago we had no less than a half-dozen requests from various sources to use different photos from the database - these were all honest, above-board people who wanted to give full credit to the photographer. Without a venue such as the Plants Database, it's unlikely that any of those photos would have been seen by the persons who requested to use them.

Baa, I am really sorry for you, also I'm sorry for Sue, what has happened to her photos. I wish people would be more clever and understand how it feels when someone steals something that is yours.

dave, have you tried a diagonal across the picture? it might not be quite so intrusive, I've seen it on several sites, and it would keep me from copying the picture, but I could still see it good.

Vols I agree, imitation is everywhere and there is never anything new in the world. I also hope the person concerned reconsiders and that others don't follow suit and remove their work too.

Evert

I don't mind all that much, it's only when the words are twisted way beyond their original context that it annoys me :)

Dave,
What about another color? Something not so "bright"?

As for whoever wants to take their pictures out of the database, what on earth is the benefit of that? That makes no sense to me at all. If someone could please explain to me what there is to gain from that, I'm very interested.

I have had some of my work claimed by someone else before and it does "hurt". I didn't retreat, though. I faced it head-on.

I'd hate to see a big fat, obtrusive copyright on the photos. IMHO - those that want to copy pictures - will copy them anyways.... with a watermark or not. I started putting my spools1 name on my photos at e-bay - and as you saw that fella had my name on one of the pictures. He didn't care. He's out to make a buck and probably has never even grown a poppy.

I hate to see anyone remove their photos from the database too. Gosh - if you can't share photos with your gardening friends - what's the point of taking them? I know my friends are bored to tears when I start hauling out my garden photo albums ;)

I should also mention that I have been asked if I would sell a couple of my photos. I had a lady from a label company and a man putting a book together contact me. Both wanting to pay for photos they had seen on the database.

I like the "choice" idea.

I think the choice should be made before you post. If you don't want your picture to be taken then put a warter mark on it. I don't think Dave should be responsible for this, We should.

I think it should be optional whether you want to copyright/watermark a photo... is there anyway you can make it a choice when you add a photo? I don't mind people who'd like to use my photos.

Dave I just did a right click on a picture in PDB & true I couldn't copy it
BUT I was able to save it (deleted it from my disk also) Can U do like they do in the hosta Library photos & have only a message come up when anyone right click on a picture. The way U have it now all they have to do is save it?

Dave,

after alll this very tuitive dicussion, I rounded up my opinion :

(a) the images best to be left with a copyright note at the corner - a symbl reminding that theft will be committed if they "borrow" the image. This, because the main purpose of gardening is the presentation of beauty; a copyright image in the middle of the pic is like weeds in the middle of the flowerbed, like underpants on Michaelangelo's statue, and afterall the pic can still be stolen..

(b) the right click disables also parallel study of several images in successive windows - I find it crippling. I think he db exists to allow shuffling of its records (study, reference, comparison). Besides, in most cases of image theft, a google search should be able to locate a stolen image and the rest should be left to us.

(c) I discovered the mighty weapon going down a lot of messages in these two threads re. copyright. When we find a "thief" we all swarm on him with emails and complaints and difficulties - even the eulogies smiln wrote about him should be a bad enough message to give up. We will have to be the "DaveGardenBees". It is a major trait of your site, this togetherness feeling. Congratulations first of all to you, the host. thanks to all of you my friends now.

Dimitri

I also discovered tonight that b) was a problem. I tried to right click on one of my own photos that I posted in the identification forum, to move it into paint so I could put another photo there temporarily to view them side by side to make a positive ID.

Joan, you've got mail. :)

OK now I am confused! (More than usual) If you are not able to copy the picture by right clicking on it and a warning pops up if you try, then why would the intrusive marking be needed at all?

I am afraid that this type of mark totally destroys the pleasure the picture would otherwise bring to me and would not only stop me from stealing the picture but would cause me to lose interest in viewing the site entirely. Not being a programer I obviously do not have the answer to the problem but I certainly hope that there is a better way!

Thanks Kimberley! I'm such a dumb s**t sometimes. LOL! My camera stores the pics I take on a floppy and I have a habit of deleting them once I do what I intend to with them. Which is what I did tonight with the unknown bush I was trying to ID. I do this because I stick that same floppy disk back into the camera for re-use. I need to add floppy disks to my shopping list ! Ü

Joan, no problem. :)

Have you considered getting some memory sticks to use with your camera if they're an option on your model of Mavica? I just don't trust floppy disks after losing some important documents on ones which went bombo-o on me. Anyway, the memory sticks will give you a lot more capacity.

Zany - the reason the watermark would be there in addition to the right-click prohibition is that the latter is easy to circumvent once you figure out how.

Well, I tried to right click on pictures in the database and up came a warning that Dave's protects its copyrights but I can right click and copy on individual posts on the threads. So I take it some people who are smarter than I, can bypass that warning and copy from the database?

Yes.