Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess"
scribbled:



Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave
scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad
art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it
be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self
confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said
watermark is the least of the problem.

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is
responsible for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

I'm sure it's what drug you out of the woodwork.

QED

"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...

To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
pretentiously.


...bravo the adverb! (Also the thought...).

cg

The whole idea of a watermqark is to identify - set aside as uniquely
different, a printed work. At the same time it announces to the world that
the owner seeks protection from image thieves.

Pretentious? What is pretending about the purpose of a watermark.?

There are those who say it "defaces" an otherwise nice piece. These people
are never likely to be converted to paying customers. In fact they are more
likely to steal images without markings on them.so why take notice of what
they say?

If dishonest people (Some of whom have given out advise in this thread)
didn't steal other people's images, there would be no need to protect them
in the first place.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:34:44 -0500, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess"
scribbled:


Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

I'm sure it's what drug you out of the woodwork.

LOL

tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
watermark across the face.

The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
is the better word.

Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he's the judge
of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That's not a
bad thing, except he's delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.

Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

D-Mac wrote:

The whole idea of a watermqark is to identify - set aside as uniquely
different, a printed work. At the same time it announces to the world that
the owner seeks protection from image thieves.

It was originally (and to this day) used in currency and stationary to
show the provenence of the paper and/or the printer.

Pretentious? What is pretending about the purpose of a watermark.?

Pretentious and pretending have common roots, but aren't synonymous.

There are those who say it "defaces" an otherwise nice piece. These people
are never likely to be converted to paying customers. In fact they are more
likely to steal images without markings on them.so why take notice of what
they say?

If dishonest people (Some of whom have given out advise in this thread)
didn't steal other people's images, there would be no need to protect them
in the first place.

Wouldn't it be dishonest people who steal? IE, honest guys don't, so
it's redundant.

Anyhooooo, pretention would arise if one used the term "marque de
l'eau", not unlike always referrring to an inkjet print as "giclée".

--
John McWilliams

John J wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
watermark across the face.
The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
is the better word.


Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he's the judge
of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That's not a
bad thing, except he's delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.

That's a big brave assertion from an anonymous coward. Get real. Our
tony is not delusional in the least.

--
lsmft

Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When'd we elect you
king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When'd we elect you
king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don't you, dip****?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows
that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately
self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line,
after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

--
Frank ess

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:31:35 -0800, "Frank ess"
scribbled:

John J wrote:
Voivod wrote:

So you get to judge people but no one else can? When'd we elect
you king?

A simple observation, fukwit.

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad
art.

Show us your stuff!

You have a hard time following conversations, don't you, dip****?

I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these
fellows that, even though their signatures are clever and
appropriately self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on
a separate line, after a line containing two hyphens and a space?

You're seriously not as clever as you imagine.

As opposed to your 'umble self, who clearly makes no pretension to
"cleverness"?