[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click,etc. (was: Web home pagewriting software)

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

It is your choice to not protect your work.  There are ways to make the
work viewable and yet not likely to be copied or reproduced, like
visible watermarks, which do deface the work somewhat, but for buyers,
they can usually imagine the work without the watermark, and so the
intent of the image remains.

"Usually" (see below) images published in magazines are paid for being
published, so at least that use has already been compensated for.

You are, however, being naive about professionals paying for images
rather than them stealing from web sites.  I used to belong to a list
for stock photographers, and nearly every or two day there was one or
more horror stories of a photographer who had one or more images stolen
from a web site by major publications.  When these publishers were
caught, they would then "offer" to pay the fee.  Some photographers make
it a point of charging four times their usually fee for any work they
find that was stolen.  These are some very well known stock
photographers who make their living (and a good one) selling their
images.  Many retain lawyers for just such circumstances, and they
usually get their 4x fee.  They figure for every one they catch there
are probably 3 that get away, so that seems a fair punitive approach.

;-)

Art

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Arthur writes:
>
>
>>The ONLY absolutes I see here are that an
>>artist's work is his own to do as he pleases,
>>and that there is no moral authority to take
>>or copy other people's creations even if it
>>is easy to do so, unless the artist has
>>agreed to it.
>>
>
> Quite true, but the practical reality is that there is no way to prevent
> people from stealing images off a Web site.  Either you do not post what you
> do not want stolen, or you post images and accept that they will be stolen.
> Posting images for everyone to see, and then trying to prevent them from
> seeing them with elaborate protection mechanisms (and make no mistake, there
> is no way to protect images without simultaneously preventing them from
> being seen), doesn't make much sense.
>
> Publishing images on a Web site is like publishing them in a magazine:  Some
> people will cut pictures out of magazines and tape them to their walls,
> rather than buy expensive prints.  But you usually tolerate the magazine
> publication in exchange for the exposure, knowing that many people will not
> be satisfied with just a cut-out magazine clip and/or will be too honest to
> cheat that way, and will buy real prints.
>
> I know that people may steal images off my site.  Heck, for personal use, I
> explicitly authorize the downloading of images (indeed, the wallpapers
> section is _designed_ for that).  I suppose I'm losing revenue in some vague
> theoretical way by doing so.  However, I also know that big-money buyers
> will still ask me for permission and pay me money for that permission when
> they want to use an image for something more serious.  It's a trade-off.
> Nobody would ever buy my pictures at all if they could not _see_ them.
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body