one good reason for watermarking images on Flickr...

[Taq]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6665723.stm

Yahoo has been accused of censorship on its popular photo website Flickr, in a row that has highlighted the issue of copyright in the online age.

Earlier this month photographer Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir discovered that seven of her pictures were reportedly being sold by a UK-based online gallery.
...

According to Ms Gudleifsdóttir, online gallery Only Dreemin sold 60 prints of seven of her photos, for more than £2,500, without her consent.

No-one from gallery Only Dreemin was available for comment.

Ms Gudleifsdóttir owns the copyright to all of her photos on Flickr and the website clearly states that people cannot use them without permission.


Taq

[raymondlin]

You can actually hack the flickr site by fiddle with the URL for the images and get the full size upload. So to be safe you really should only load up small images to start with.

[GarethH]

You can actually hack the flickr site by fiddle with the URL for the images and get the full size upload. So to be safe you really should only load up small images to start with.

Even though nobody would want my photos, I upload small too. What sort of size is small enough not to be used.

[Boink!]

That's bad, especially with how flickr initially handled it. Thank god all my photos are <s>rubbish</s> in low sizes only.

[Radiohead]

It's happened thousands of times - the only reason this makes the news is because of the following she has on Flickr.

[Ragnarak]

That's bad, especially with how flickr initially handled it. Thank god all my photos are <s>rubbish</s> in low sizes only.

See, this is what I don't get. If some gallery did this to me and it was a clear cut case, surely I'd be quids in. I'd love it if someone stole my photo and sold it for thousands, assuming I had no intention to sell them myself.

This woman can't afford the legal fees as she's so broke but surely she's almost guaranteed to win and get a considerable amount of money which she obviously needs. Surely any lawyer would look at this case and agree a "no win, no fee" type deal as they'd be sure of winning.

[Taq]

I would have thought it was a simple CAB visit and a small claims court job against the gallery involved?

[raymondlin]

I would have thought it was a simple CAB visit and a small claims court job against the gallery involved?

The photographer is in Sweden I believe so can't just pop over.

[Highlander]

I beleive she's from Iceland though, so may not be aware of things such as 'no win, no fee'. I'm not suggesting Iceland is a backward country or anything, but maybe the compensation culture hasn't reach there yet.

[Taq]

oh right I presumed she was English for some reason. I guess it then belongs in the murky world of international copyright regulations.

[raymondlin]

oh right I presumed she was English for some reason. I guess it then belongs in the murky world of international copyright regulations.

She should still be able to file a small claims action in English court if she can come over.

[rh67]

Not that I'm that worried about any of my photos being stolen in the near future but does anyone know of a good tutorial for creating and adding watermarks?

[Highlander]

I use this method (http://www.digiscoped.com/Digiscopingwithphotoshop.html#anchor_3317) when I want to watermark, which isn't often. Needs photoshop.

[Ragnarak]

She should still be able to file a small claims action in English court if she can come over.

And claim back the cost of a nice holiday as well.

It's really strange that she's not bothered in pushing for it to go to court to teach them a lesson and get something out of it herself.

[Taq]

I use a program called picture shark for watermarking, which is free and can do things in batch mode. It's really easy to set up too eg...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/465969477_f8c3ef1c52.jpg

[Pheonix]

I think if I were to have anything more than 1024x768 uploaded then I'd want to Digimarc them (providing they were any good/of something someones actually likely to steal).

[DeadKenny]

You can knock up a script to watermark with ImageMagick though I've yet to try it out myself.

I limit my Flickr uploads to 800 pixels on the longest edge. Have my own gallery for bigger pictures though it's more just for storing a larger collection and sharing with friends/family, and I keep flickr to just the better stuff. Not that any of it is any good for me to care much.

As for how small is unusable, well it depends on use. A site could still make use of even a thumbnail if all they're after is something for a montage to use in a banner or similar. If they're making money from it then I expect to be paid.