photo ownership
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | I have just noticed that the members name on the photos is no longer there, maybe it's been gone a while & I've missed conversations about it? so lots of things have changed & if I take a photo & put it on here, should I be putting a watermark on my photos before putting them on here? maybe there is a hidden box that now has to be ticked all over again? Edited by urbanrefugee54 at 11:52 am, Thu 7 Oct urbanrefugee54 - 2021-10-07 11:51:00 |
| 2 | the user name is included in the exif info attached to the photo. a watermark would be harder to manipulate though I would think. king1 - 2021-10-07 13:05:00 |
| 3 | king1 wrote:
errr I just uploaded a photo i took and then resaved it and opened it with irfanview to check the exif info. . ALL exif info has been totally stripped out and even though the 'include user name on photo' tick box is there and was ticked theres no user name 'on' the photo either. nice_lady - 2021-10-07 13:56:00 |
| 4 | I did the same process with the main photo here opened the viewer, saved image, opened in irfanview -> image info -> exif perhaps the watermark isn't applied until a auction is started, or the coders have stuffed something up when I download my upload I get the same as you, no exif info. we need a brand new auction to test it on - my example could have been an auction relisted a 100 times... Edited by king1 at 2:31 pm, Thu 7 Oct king1 - 2021-10-07 14:27:00 |
| 5 | Hmm dunno. I just uploaded a new photo - with the 'include username' option ticked - and then opened it in irfanview, (using the file/open dialogue and pasting the url in there). Zero exif data available. king1 wrote:
Hmmm... Edited by nice_lady at 2:54 pm, Thu 7 Oct nice_lady - 2021-10-07 14:51:00 |
| 6 | I couldn't find any members names on the photos & I just copied an image of something I'm wanting to buy & it hasn't come up with the sellers name on the photo? all my photos used to have the user name ticked, but I noticed that they don't know - will be loading few things I have to get rid of & will see if there is a box - I don't remember there being one the last time I added photos Edited by urbanrefugee54 at 3:03 pm, Thu 7 Oct urbanrefugee54 - 2021-10-07 15:00:00 |
| 7 | urbanrefugee54 wrote:
Well if your concern is the retention of ownership of the photo just use paint or photoshop or whatever you have/like to put the copyright symbol on the photo with your username beside it and the year nice_lady - 2021-10-07 15:06:00 |
| 8 | nice_lady wrote: not that concerned about ownership, but I know it's been a problem in the past with some copying auctions & stealing the photos - the photo I used to see if the username showed up would have been good if it had of, because then it would remind me which seller has that item I'm wanting urbanrefugee54 - 2021-10-07 15:36:00 |
| 9 | I will print off my name & put it into the photo when I take it - which I think is easiest way to do it urbanrefugee54 - 2021-10-07 15:38:00 |
| 10 | urbanrefugee54 wrote:
Lol. Ok. Whatever works for you. nice_lady - 2021-10-07 16:04:00 |
| 11 | I noticed it last year and commented, but the thread has now dropped off. Their reply..... and of course no change since, but it's only been a year. Plenty more stuff broken, but seems it's just all in the too hard basket. nzstocked - 2021-10-07 16:07:00 |
| 12 | The member deleted this message. nice_lady - 2021-10-07 16:34:00 |
| 13 | urbanrefugee54 wrote:
You own the image. You don't need to watermark it, you still own it. johnston - 2021-10-07 18:01:00 |
| 14 | Re exif data and Irfanview. If I view the image in the listing and do a simple copy and paste into Irfan - no data. If I do a "save as..." and open the resulting jpg from my machine I get the data. wembley1 - 2021-10-07 18:38:00 |
| 15 | wembley1 wrote:
Didn't work for me. nice_lady - 2021-10-07 19:50:00 |
| 16 | johnston wrote:
You can say you own anything - proof. ? nice_lady - 2021-10-07 19:51:00 |
| 17 | my worry is the art.. but I would assume that those would be watermarked, what I did could be easily erased by using a photoshop type program - but I did it that way because I take the photo & download them onto trademe instantly at the speed of a slow gnat & my stuff isn't worth anything.. urbanrefugee54 - 2021-10-07 20:23:00 |
| 18 | nice_lady wrote:
That wasn't the question. The evidential burden is on other party not the owner. I own many tangible and intangible things. Just because some are easier than others to establish ownership does not mean I do not own them. johnston - 2021-10-08 07:17:00 |
| 19 | That's fine until you have to prove ownership if you get into some kind of dispute. nice_lady - 2021-10-08 07:50:00 |
| 20 | If you want to prove that the photo is yours, put your name or logo in black in a very dark part of the photo. Then it can be seen if the photo is brightened up a lot. trade4us2 - 2021-10-08 08:36:00 |
| 21 | I downloaded a random TM photo to my desktop and the only exif data left was the trader's name. So that carries through. Don't worry about your proof of ownership. If you were ever challenged, which is highly unlikely, you still have a copy of the original with the original exif data that came off your camera. raewyn2 - 2021-10-08 09:54:00 |
| 22 | Thinking it through, the old watermark as per your original question does seem to be gone as you say. It had limited use in protecting your photo from theft as it would have been easy to remove anyway. It does have other uses though, as above, so it would be good if TM put it back. For the exif data, it's probably good that TM do strip it off because it can identify personal details that are contrary to TM's policies - eg copyright statements with the photographer's contact details, GPS data that would show where the photographer lived, etc. At the end of the day, your photo is your photo and anyone else using it has breached copyright, which can always be proven by your possession of the original. raewyn2 - 2021-10-08 10:56:00 |
| 23 | nice_lady wrote:
If you stole something you might find it problematic to establish ownership. johnston - 2021-10-08 11:21:00 |
| 24 | raewyn2 wrote:
It is not easy to remove if it cannot be seen without brightening the whole picture. What a pity people miss the point of what I am saying. trade4us2 - 2021-10-10 09:32:00 |
| 25 | Trivially easy to remove for even a beginner image editor. Pointless ronaldo8 - 2021-10-10 14:48:00 |
| 26 | ronaldo8 wrote:
If you can't see the watermark, you can't remove it. trade4us2 - 2021-10-10 22:40:00 |
| 27 | trade4us2 wrote:
Read what you replied to again at 24. Invisible watermarks were not what was being discussed, and even those are easily removed. You think software cares what you can see with your eyes? ronaldo8 - 2021-10-11 01:38:00 |
| 28 | trade4us2 wrote:
I was referring to the TM watermark that the OP was asking about. Your concept of an invisible watermark could have a use elsewhere, but I think the usefulness would usually be over-ridden by the fact that the owner of the photo has the original with the original exif data included. raewyn2 - 2021-10-11 09:12:00 |
