paul stenquist wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
....
I agree that it certainly can't hurt, although I would think going back to
embed copyright EXIF in older pics is probably a waste of time. It's not likely
that someone iss going to find your photo in a secondary source -- like a
commercial webiste -- and try to track down the source. People looking for art
tend to go to places where there's a lot of it'' flickr or photo.net. If they
want to go legit and buy the image, the shooter's contact info is available,
and copyright information is noted on the site. Of course there is a chance
that someone might pick up a photo from a second or third hand source, but
quite frankly, I haven't heard of it happening.
Paul
I donated a photo to a website "museum" and because the photo stated
that I held the copyright I got
a sale out of it - it had been seen by someone searching for a certain
kind of image. I always put
my copyright in the EXIF when I load up to my smugmug site and it gets
watermarked there as well...
But I don't imbed it in the image so that it can be seen as if I make
sales from smugmug of prints
the back of the print gets that info.
And I watermark all my ebay images with "annsan scan " and the year.
that's as much to show that
the photo is of the actual object I'm selling - not a stock photo of one
like it.
ann
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
