Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 294 of 315 FirstFirst ... 194244284292293294295296304 ... LastLast
Results 2,931 to 2,940 of 3148
  1. #2931
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    2 for me Phill. Nice set.

    Best case scenario for frames and signatures is they don't detract from the image. I stopped doing it awhile back. If you like to do it, then keep doing it!
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  2. #2932
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    5,924
    Agreed. Some people like the framing and signatures, others not so much. Me? Not so much, but then I'm kind of lazy... We do appreciate that it takes some extra effort, but it can detract from the image, not always, but sometimes. Personally I think your images look fine sans frame and name.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  3. #2933
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,866
    Quote Originally Posted by danwiz View Post
    Raven15: Frames and signatures are bad ideas? I have noticed that many people here use a copyright signature, so are you saying that you don't ever like them, or do you not like the font or placement I used? Help me please.
    Actually I'm not too picky, but I did find my self wondering what it looked like without. It's not that bad an idea (now water marking, there's a bad idea).

  4. #2934
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mitaka City, Tokyo Japan
    Posts
    136
    Thanks for your responses regarding frames and names everybody. I know that technically and legally that if we post something on the web, then it is automatically "copyrighted" (at least I think I know that), but I am just a little too untrusting of other people around the web who may stumble on my photos and link to them without any intention of giving credit to the photographer. As you know from my signature, I have a web domain with lots of photos on it. When I use my webmaster tools I find my site linked all over the web by just a link with no credit given at all. Therefore, when a visitor to THAT (other) website clicks on a link to, say an orchid photo, then people see the photo with no idea who took the photo if I do not put my name on it. This may make some of you other folks think (and be wary) too. If you do NOT put your name on your photo and then somebody finds a link to your beautiful photo on xxxyyy.com as "Here is a beautiful picture of a sunset", people click on it, see your beautiful photo and have no idea who took that "beautiful sunset photo". Understand?

  5. #2935
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,831
    Quote Originally Posted by danwiz View Post
    TI know that technically and legally that if we post something on the web, then it is automatically "copyrighted" (at least I think I know that),
    I have no idea where you got that idea but you are wrong. If you simply post a photo on an open forum there is no copyright. Do not post anything that you are not prepared to have other people appropriate it's that simple.

  6. #2936
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,831

  7. #2937
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mitaka City, Tokyo Japan
    Posts
    136
    K1W1: I like that one, such a mysterious looking scene!

    By the way, regarding copyright, do you agree with this: "Taking the photos means that they belong to you. You are the artist, and you hold copyright to that material. Unfortunately, proving it and doing anything about it when someone takes them is a somewhat difficult matter." I just found it right now.


    And the following, from U of Pittsburgh seems quite clear on the use of digital images:

    5. What can I do to protect my work under copyright law?

    Once a work has been fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it is automatically protected under copyright law.
    See "How to Secure a Copyright" in Circular 1: Copyright Basics from the U.S. Copyright Office for more information including the advantages of registering your work with the U.S. Copyright Office.
    back to Copyright Information:FAQs


    6. How do I get the copyright symbol to appear on my works? Is there a certain format I have to use?

    See the "Notice of Copyright" section on Circular 1 from the U.S. Copyright Office for information and guidelines about copyright notices. It is important to note that a copyright notice is no longer required in order for a work to be protected by copyright law. However, if you do include such notice on your works (including web pages and digital images) it prevents others from claiming "innocent infringement" when unlawfully copying your work.

    And this below seems to strongly disagree with what you told me:

    http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
    Last edited by danwiz; 06-25-2013 at 04:47 PM.

  8. #2938
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,866
    That is a great black and white shot.

  9. #2939
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,831
    Thanks @danwiz and @raven15.

    I think that the copyright discussion should move to another thread in a better part of the forum. This is not the place for it.

  10. #2940
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    5,924
    Rich, well done. Another wonderful image.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •