That's right. Also I assume that is someone cares enough for a picture of mine to want it in the wall, they will probably care enough to not make it out of a 600 pixel image.
Moreover, to be consistent with the license, if someone requests a high res file to make their own print I will give them one. But then I can charge for my time preparing it. j On 9/3/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Juan, I like that idea. > > I have been thinking lately about how to deal with copyright in my old age > <grin>. I am no longer a commercial photographer. It pleases me if someone > wants to hang one of my photos on their wall. But at the same time if there > is money to be made from the image, I would like to get some of it. > > So I have been thinking of setting up a form letter to protect my copyright > to send to someone who I find is using it unauthorizedly. That letter would > would give permission to use one copy for personal display, wallpaper, etc. > In cases like the start of this thread it would require them to post a > copyright notice with the image and pay a fee of $1.00. All other uses would > require them to obtain a written license of use, fee negotiable. Otherwise > face court action. > > Not being a lawyer, but being fairly well read in law (US), this does I think > protect ones rights to ones images pretty completely and at the same times > keeps one from having to seek legal redress over and over. The minimal fee > makes it clear that you allow no one to use your images commercially for > free. And makes it possible to sue for monetary damages in any such case. > Note, the fact that they refused to pay the token fee makes them liable for > full commercial rates. > > If one really has no monetary interest in ones images the common license you > posted a link to makes makes complete sense. All it requires is that they > attribute the image to the photographer. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Juan Buhler wrote: > > All my work is under a Creative Commons license: > > > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ > > > > So people are in principle free to grab images from my website and use > > them, within the constrains of the license. > > > > Haven't seen any of my images used illegally. I think the excess of > > watermarks, copyright notices and copy protection measures do more to > > alienate regular viewers than it does to protect your rights. But > > that's just me. > > > > j > > > > On 9/2/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Do any of you guys use some kind of watermarks to protect agains > >>unauthorized copying of you images on the internet? > >>Do you use a brand name watermark and at what price? > >>Does anybodyu use: http://www.digimarc.com ? > >>Regards > >>Jens > >> > >>Jens Bladt > >>Arkitekt MAA > >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
