1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Copyright on Flickr or not?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AndyMcD, May 15, 2011.

  1. I mainly post through Flickr, though I resize everything to have a longest side of 1000. I've had a number of people commenting that my copyright mark is getting in the way. Here's an example (though the black background loses most of the image anyway):

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Ignition by Andy McDonald, on Flickr

    I notice a lot of pictures with no copyright on them at all but I would think that would leave you open to image theft (though I'm sure that anyone could remove a copyright image anyway if they were determined enough).

    I'm thinking of reformatting my images to have the copyright as follows:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Bridge at Belton by Andy McDonald, on Flickr

    What do you guys think? Should I bother having a copyright image on there at all? I am only posting at about 1000 pixels anyway, so the image would be no good printed.

    Thanks for taking the time to read this.
  2. Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  3. sypher


    May 24, 2006
    Cougar Country
    Why should you let some bozo tell you what to do with your picture? Sure they can be distracting, but why should that bother your peace of mind? Tell them you would be more then willing to sell them a copyif they like it so much they want to see it without a (c).
    by the way, i like the 1st pic.
  4. JusPlainCrayzee

    JusPlainCrayzee Administrator Administrator

    Andy, the way the copyright is situated in the 2nd image, I could crop it right off. I know that with CS5, the copyright could be removed fairly easily (from what I've read here in the Cafe), but why make it super easy for someone? Put the copyright where you want it, and post at low rez.

    And +1 on the first image; I like it...
  5. Do we consider 1000 on the long side low rez?? I just got a great deal on 4X6 prints, so I just sent in my file for loading to Pbase, 1000 long, the prints came back very nice, not sure how large you can print such a file, I guess they were in the 300KB range.
  6. That's a good point about getting 6 x 4 prints. I guess 1000 at 6" would be about 150dpi, probably good enough for a print in most instances. Food for thought.

  7. Thanks for all of the replies. I think that I'm going to stick with the bigger copyright image through the bottom of the frame.

    I've been trying to generate more hits on my Flickr account by joining various groups but some of the people on there critique using some sort of randomiser, and complain about things like copyright watermarks rather than the actual image.

    Though some are pretty straight up and give great feedback.

  8. Russ_


    Feb 20, 2011
    New Zealand
    I've seen files with 1000 side printed at 15x10cm, look fine. Watermark.
  9. Lurker


    Jul 21, 2007
    That won't stop people from using your image. (been there)

    Well blimey that's the #### point guv'nor, innit?

    Seriously, you're using a copyright mark for two reasons:
    • It's "impossible" to reuse the image without showing the copyright mark (to prevent "everyone and their uncle" from using it). The word "impossible" is in quotation marks as nothing is impossible in Photoshop.
    • It's very easy to remove the copyright mark but doing so obviously violates IP laws (to prevent magazines and newspapers from using it without permission hiding behind "we thought it was public domain"). In that case a thin black bar at the bottom, with your copyright information in it, will suffice.

    No actually, I have yet to hear from a case like that! Pictures rarely—as in never— get stolen. Imagine that. You wake up one morning and a picture has disappeared from your Flickr site (and from your hard drive)!!
    What does happen a lot is that your copyrights get infringed on. But that is something different. Somebody used an image made by you without permission. But they did not take it away from you. Nittpicking? Yeah, but you'd be amazed how much the court is like that.
  10. sambo.


    Mar 20, 2011
    watermark the crap out of them i say.

    if people want a 'clean' version, they can pay for it.
  11. Ryan_T


    Mar 24, 2011
    I wonder if this is one of those things where pros and amateurs differ.

    I don't feel like anyone would steal my pics yet, and even if they do. I no longer charge for my work yet, and my primary concern is gauging interest and getting my work out there. I'd actually be honoured if someone were to steal my photo and publicize them.

    On the other hand, I only want that if they still attribute the work to me. I'm not sure if someone were to claim it's theirs.

    At the moment I have all my photos on Flickr under Creative Commons license with Attribution. I do wonder who, if any, would enforce that license.
  12. Joves


    Feb 10, 2009
    I prefer the watermarking that only appears when someone prints the photo or takes it off site. But then I have my photos set with the right click disabled. Granted some people can get around that as well. The only good way to check your photos is Tineye.While it doesnt catch all of the copies floating around it does a fairly good job.
  13. Can you elaborate, please? How do you make this watermark? How does the file know it is off site?
  14. keytarjunkie

    keytarjunkie Guest

    In my experience, Tineye does a terrible job. I've found many, many copies of my images myself that tineye can't find.

    I gave up trying to prevent people from stealing my images a long time ago, when I realized it was actually beneficial. Websites like weheartit and tumblr actively encourage the distribution of images belonging to other people, and many bloggers put images on their websites without any permission of the owner. Tumblr has recently started to crack down and tries to always automatically include the link to photos pulled from flickr. Some bloggers are kind about linking to the original source, and others don't care. One particular photo of mine has been passed around on tumblr a lot:


    People see it on flickr, and add it to their tumblr blogs. The idea with tumblr is, people can "reblog" your posts. In this particular case, the original post was reblogged a few hundred times:

    http://universeofmyown.tumblr.com/post/3715590766 (click "view notes")

    This is all from ONE person posting it to tumblr, and it has been posted more times than I can ever find with the tools I have available. If say five people post this image, and each one is reblogged hundreds of times, it really gets around! There's really nothing you can do to stop it, so I leave it be. The original flickr account was deleted a while ago, so now it's a mute point, but when it links back to my website or flickr, I get a lot of hits and a lot more interested in my work. I've actually gotten a few really good gigs that way. So as long as the client that the work is intended for isn't stealing it from you, I would say redistribution isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.