Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 13 11:02 am)
Subject: Hello everyone I'm new (want to see a picture?)
Not a lawyer, and this topic generally starts a long thread full of silly myths and misinformation. However, any original work is legally copyrighted to the author when he creates it. It is not necessary to register it to have copyright, under US law at any rate, it is automatic. "Registering" this copyright just provides one accepted method of verification should you subsequently need to prove the creation date in court. There are many other less expensive/free methods of establishing authorship and the creation date.
...and btw, your pic still does not show up on your R'osity homepage. You need to post it as a .jpg or .gif to appear in most browsers. A .bmp will not work. Give it another shot. I'd like to see what you've got. You can include an image in a reply to a thread (such as here) by using the HTML code in your reply: (img src="YourPicsURL") Changing the parenthesis to "greater-than" & "less-than" brackets. And with regard to the digital fingerprints, I'm not really sure what that is. [WARNING! now venturing into the realm of silly myths and unqualified opinion] However I doubt that that alone would suffice. It would neither provide proof of authorship nor creation date, as it could be subsequently added to an image, or overwritten, at any time after publication.
A digital fingerprint dates and registers a digital file of any type. Check firstuse.com for more info. I have been using digital fingerprints along with registered copyrights. and I've been told that you can use the poor man's copyright also (mailing your work to yourself) I appreciate you're conversation.
Digimarc (http://www.digimarc.com provides a free digital "watermark" & comes packaged with PSP & PS. They give you a unique ID number & will let you display your contact info for potential customers once you register. You can, for extra $$$, even add enhancements which will allow you to track your pics on the web, if necessary. Additonally once a graphic is watermarked it cannot be overwritten, at least not a digimarc. I tried once on a misdated piece I did & got an error msg "There is already a registered watermark present" :-)
pus ghetty - tried to respond to the Priv Msg but got "User Pus not found" May be something wrong with your user name registration. Ask one of the Admin to check it out for you. Also, though it is now looking for a .jpg, your R'osity homepage still will not display the image. I got "file not found". Because it is filed at the site by your user name, the two problems may be related.
Being a habitual tinkerer I did some mucking about trying to defeat the system :-) I tried format conversions from jpg to gif, jpg to bmp, jpg to tif, and several variations thereof. I went back & forth from 24 to 8 bit color & tried a screen cap... surprisingly in all cases the watermark held it's integrity & was readable by the digimark scanner (which is also included in PS & PSP) In fact the only way I was able to defeat the system was by significantly altering the picture either by editing manually or using a plugin. Now the only codicil to all this is that the watermark is only readable by the provided scanner at 24 bit color & up, so if someone really wanted to grab one of your graphics they could convert it to gif & the watermark would be unreadable. However if you convert it back to jpg (even after saving in gif format!) there it is again :-)
Cooler, if you were to perform the conversions on a machine, and in a program, that did not have the Digimark software installed, does it still get regenerated? That is to ask, did it get retained because the Digimark software spotted it and re-wrote it during the file conversions? If you have an image posted somewhere that is marked, let me try the conversion to see. No biggie, just curious. btw - can you view pus ghetty's reposted jpg image on his page here? Or is it just me.
Uh, pus_ghetty, unless your computer 1) Is set up as a network file server, and 2) has a permanent internet connection/IP address, that won't work - you need to access a public (FTP, usually) directory on the web - or create a new thread, as this site WILL load images from your hard drive, IF IT'S THE FIRST post in a thread (or in the gallery). Do you have a web page of your own? You can post images there.
You are seeing it because it is still in your browser's file buffer. If using Netscape, hit CTL-R and it will force a reload, rather than just taking the image from your cache. (or jsut clear out your cache) Or, just start a new thread here and post the new .jpg the same as you did at the Bryce forum. (to post a pic in a reply here, the image must already have a URL on the web.)
Ok, first of all, I was mistaken about the renaming. If you upload an image, as you are doing, rather than providing a link to an image, the system does re-name it to "userpus ghetty.jpg". So that part is normal. To clear the cache, In NS it's: Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Cache/ then: "Clear Memory Cache' & "Clear Disk Cache" I still think there might be a problem with your user name. Send me another Private Message and see if I can respond by clicking.
This entire thread is interesting to me, especially the watermarking part with Digimarc. Just today I registered with Digimarc, got the 1-999 pictures option plus the Spider option FINALLY putting up a website shortly and years ago had a bad expeerience with copyright infringement. At any rate, testing out the Digimarc watermarking in Paint Shop Pro 6 (PSP6), I found that the watermark seems not to take on some images. On some of the JPEGs, when the image was saved after embedding the watermark and then reloading, some of them had the watermark and some didn't. At least, PSP6 would say "No watermark wsa found on this image" when read watermark was checked. I did think I saw that embed watermark option was grayed out on gifs, but if the image wsa converted to jpeg, or even if the color count was bumped up to 16.7 million colors then the embed and read watermark options would be available. It seems that on SOME of these images (and others) the watermark could be embedded and when saved again as a gif, it -- the watermark -- would not be visible, i.e., "No watermark was found", but if the image was converted to jpeg the watermark could be read -- sometimes! I find this interesting in that there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to it, i.e., why some images would have the watermark and others would not. Of course, it may very well be some very obvious detail I am overlooking. Anyone have any guidance on this? Also, it seems that .bmp images, no matter what their color count, would all have the watermark read after saving and reloading.
A few comments on Digimarc. Unlike Larry F, the watermark has always worked for me. However, it has also always been relatively easy to remove the watermark, sometimes with very little manipulation, and it doesn't seem to matter what embedding strength was used. It has always survived merely being transformed from one image format to another or copying. Robustness seems to vary from image to image so individual image experimentation is in order. If you want absolute protection via identification I do not think digital watermarks are secure enough. Their greatest value seems to be the ease with which interested viewers may determine and contact the image's author. If you are a working artist this certainly justifies its use. But this whole issue begs the question "How many of us actually produce anything worth protecting?" If someone likes your picture & keeps a copy for themselves or as screen wallpaper is that such a terrible thing? Unless someone is trying to make money off your work I don't think protection is much of an issue. If the image is not rather popular it is unlikely that such commercial thefts will be profitable. And if the work is popular, its very notoriety is usually sufficient to give protection. From time to time some of my stuff has appeared on others' sites. I only knew because someone else sent me an email to tell me. In each case it was a vanity thing in the sense that the thief was not trying to make money but simply presenting the work as their own. A simple email thanking the thief for their interest & requesting a web link solved the problem. But either way, this is not something that would cause me to lose sleep. Image thieves will always be image thieves whereas I can always create something new. Sometimes I think concern over image protection is either misplaced ego or paranoia. I'd rather spend my thought on my next image.
jval, I have to agree with much of what you said, i.e., the "vanity" issue, whether or not -- anyone -- produces images "worthy of copying", and/or overconcern with image protection. These are all valid points, I think, but I guess you have to look at this the same way as locking a door to your house, car, or office -- it will most likely REDUCE the possibilities of said property being stolen, violated, or otherwise, but not necessarily PREVENT it from being stolen, etc. Disregarding the (reasonable and valid) vanity/worth aspects entirely though, in another incarcation -- a couple of decades ago, I published artwork in the form of comics/comix, cards, etc., and had on more than one occasion and one particularly nasty incident been the victim of blatant copyright violation, necessitating legal action and lawyer fees that seemed to take on a life of their own and multiply. On the other side, I unknowlingly became the violator of another's copyrights (hiring and trusting a friend in need without checking as I should have), another nasty situation. Of course, any lawyer will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse and that cost me, too -- time, trouble, and money. Of course I would be flattered by someone using artwork of mine within proper and "fair use" guidelines, but many people choose to ignore those and blatantly STEAL! Though I have posted no artwork here in the about two years I have subscribed, I do have plenty and I thoroughly understand those who have such concerns, as witness the reactions people exhibit when finding that someone has misappropriated work of theirs, and I don't think one should have their personal reactions to such be determined by the concerns of either misplaced ego, paranoia or worthiness as adjudged by others. I mean, THEY created it. Please, I hope this doesn't sound like flaming or biting your head off, just another point of view. I too would rather spend my thought on more creative things, but a late friend, once told me that "a little paranoia is a good thing in a bad neighborhood." That lesson was brought all too dreadfully home by the fact that he was later murdered in a street robbery --- in a bad neighbornood. The web can be a bad neighborhood. Boy, I hope this hasn't gotten too heavy.
Larry, no your reply was not too heavy nor did I take it as flaming. Copyright infringment is a fact of life and some of us should be very concerned about it. My point is only that, for most of us here, such image theft is not an earth-shaking matter. It may be annoying but it doesn't take money out of our wallets or food from our mouths. Other than the fact that it was taken, we have suffered no other loss, certainly not any damages that would be well rewarded by a court win. Locking the door to your home is really only necessary if you have something worth stealing. If I may use myself as an example: I've had work in a variety of prestige web galleries, won contests & even had images published. Does that make my work worth stealing? Well, no- they're just the efforts of a doodler. Are they actually worth anything? You can judge for yourself at my site: http://www.fractalus.com/jack Personally, I consider them the doodles of a wannabe. If I were good enough to make a living at this then I would undoubtably have a somewhat different view- but I'm not. My experience is that the pros worry about major infractions and just don't sweat the little stuff. On the other hand, the ones most concerned about protecting their work often seem to be the hobbyists such as myself. All I'm really trying to do is keep things in perspective. - Jack Valero
Larry, While I regret the loss of your friend I would be wary of "good" neighbourhoods also. I grew up in the slums. Somehow through chance & circumstance I became quite the yuppie and moved in upper circles. I confess that in many ways I found the slums more honest & direct. It's always a good idea to watch your back but, again, paranoia can just paralyze you and is rather counter-productive. Absolutely a no-win situation because if nobody else does it to you you do it to yourself...
Well to answer one small point that came up... James raises his hand "I do a lot of 3D artwork for professional usage." None using Poser YET. But other programs like Bryce. I have several clients that have paid for the use of my artwork. So if they saw this art popping up somewhere other than what they bought it for. I know they wouldn't be pleased. I have never gone the route of copywriting an image, because it is not worth MY time and money for the particular things I do. I'm in Advertising, and most of these images wouldn't work for anyone else but the intended party. But there have been some generic pieces I've done, that anyone could use. I DON'T put them online! And once they're in printed form, someone would have to scan them, and people think twice on that for it seems more illeagl than just grabbing from the web. printed material can be tracked to who paied for it, and who designed it. So right now, watermarking an image I might not want to be used is as far as I go. And if I really don't want to have it stollen, first I don't put it on the web, or if I MUST show it around, it is only a very low resolution image that can not be printed out with any quality larger than 4 inches or so. Again, if you don't want it stollen, don't put it out there to be stollen. And an interesting thing about a scene render ... is that you have to have the file in order to render it. In other words, The position of the models the lighting, the tex-maps, etc. So unless while in court they can run home and completly recreate your file, you'd win. James
Cool, James. Very informative. I actually was more interested in the watermarking out of mostly curiosity, despite past experience, as I have seen this topic come up periodically. And have just had a (small) personal windfall so I boutht Digimarc Somewhat ofa tinkerer myself. And I have made a lot of clip art -- ballroom dance stuff -- that I will be posting and, yes, GIVING AWAY, i.e., available for folks on the web. Have given it away in print before but hate stuffing envelopes and, well, just trying to educate myself about more and more things, too. Thanks again. I think you do great work, James, what I have seen and no wonder you work in advertising. Larry
Cool, James. Very informative. I actually was more interested in the watermarking out of mostly curiosity, despite past experience, as I have seen this topic come up periodically. And have just had a (small) personal windfall so I boutht Digimarc Somewhat ofa tinkerer myself. And I have made a lot of clip art -- ballroom dance stuff -- that I will be posting and, yes, GIVING AWAY, i.e., available for folks on the web. Have given it away in print before but hate stuffing envelopes and, well, just trying to educate myself about more and more things, too. Thanks again. I think you do great work, James, what I have seen and no wonder you work in advertising. Larry
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
I'm a newbie so be easy on me please? After 3 month's on bryce and poser I've become enthralled. I love it! My imagination and skills seem to be my only limit. I have some more pics but I need more copyrights to show them. Is there an inexpensive way to copyright these images? At thirty bucks a pop this is one of the few I have copyrighted.