I understand some may be offended by the copyright notice I use on my photos, and I am aware that some firewalls do not allow them to pass through. For that I'm sorry that you may be offended by the notice or that you can't view them through your firewall. However, please understand that I do sell photos as a hobby profession, and the copyright is what protects them from unauthorized use. (read into that theft)
I'm a pretty trusting person, and grew up where we left the doors to the house unlocked all the time. However in the electronic age, when you put something on the internet, you have to do what you must to protect your interest in your property. It's no different than locking your car door when you run into the store. Sure, if someone really wants to steal either, the lock or copyright isn't going to stop them, but you'll have the satisfaction knowing they had to tinker with it a while to get rid of the marks.
I'm not backwards enough to not realize that the photos as posted here are not really usable in most print environments because they have been cut down size wise to fit on the site, however, over the years, my primary market has been internet sites and e-zines. These size files are plenty sufficient for them to use if they wanted to.
Up until recently, I rarely paid that much attention to watermarking the photos and embedding the copyright in the file itself. However, in July, I had one taken and used without permission, and it really ticked me off that someone who knew better did what they did. It's like that first time someone came into dad's house and stole some stuff. From then on, we locked the doors.
I suggest that if you have photos that you would like to attempt to market or wish to protect your photos, you also should use a copyright watermark and or an embedded copyright. It's pretty easy in Photoshop to place both copyright protections in the photo, and it may prevent yours from being stolen as well.
The reason they won't pass through a firewall is the process of embeding the copyright into the photo's code triggers an alarm on the firewall. Some of the recent Windows updates have addressed viruses being shipped embedded into jpg photos. Like everything else, it takes a few knot heads to spoil it for everyone else. If you don't believe the embedded thing works, take a copyright embedded photo to the digital developer at Wal Mart. The machine will reject the picture and not develop it. I don't care if it's me taking my photo to Wall Mart, they won't develop one with a copyright embedded on it.
Copyrights are serious business if you attempt to market anything like photographs or articles.
Skipper
I'm a pretty trusting person, and grew up where we left the doors to the house unlocked all the time. However in the electronic age, when you put something on the internet, you have to do what you must to protect your interest in your property. It's no different than locking your car door when you run into the store. Sure, if someone really wants to steal either, the lock or copyright isn't going to stop them, but you'll have the satisfaction knowing they had to tinker with it a while to get rid of the marks.
I'm not backwards enough to not realize that the photos as posted here are not really usable in most print environments because they have been cut down size wise to fit on the site, however, over the years, my primary market has been internet sites and e-zines. These size files are plenty sufficient for them to use if they wanted to.
Up until recently, I rarely paid that much attention to watermarking the photos and embedding the copyright in the file itself. However, in July, I had one taken and used without permission, and it really ticked me off that someone who knew better did what they did. It's like that first time someone came into dad's house and stole some stuff. From then on, we locked the doors.
I suggest that if you have photos that you would like to attempt to market or wish to protect your photos, you also should use a copyright watermark and or an embedded copyright. It's pretty easy in Photoshop to place both copyright protections in the photo, and it may prevent yours from being stolen as well.
The reason they won't pass through a firewall is the process of embeding the copyright into the photo's code triggers an alarm on the firewall. Some of the recent Windows updates have addressed viruses being shipped embedded into jpg photos. Like everything else, it takes a few knot heads to spoil it for everyone else. If you don't believe the embedded thing works, take a copyright embedded photo to the digital developer at Wal Mart. The machine will reject the picture and not develop it. I don't care if it's me taking my photo to Wall Mart, they won't develop one with a copyright embedded on it.
Copyrights are serious business if you attempt to market anything like photographs or articles.
Skipper
