Email tag on images for copyright and notification of owner

[Tin Can]

I have been adding my email as small water mark in the lower right hand corner of any image I post online or give away to friends.

Today, I got an email asking permission to use an image in a blog. I cheerfully granted usage and was impressed that a blogger asked permission!

However I never post online any image I don't want 'shared'.

If I truly value an image it is never digitized or 'shared'.

[Jac@stafford.net]

However I never post online any image I don't want 'shared'.

If I truly value an image it is never digitized or 'shared'.

A loss for the rest of us.
.

[Tin Can]

A loss for the rest of us.
.

Not really. I feel Internet sharing is so vast, that all images become a blur. Imagine hundreds of years of expansion of cloud imaging. No human will ever figure it out, or be able to assimilate even a tiny bit of it.

i like paper. It lasts longer and takes longer to view, even if shuffling a deck of carte-de-visite.

I need to find my 'Memory Loss' project that dealt with this. I shot it on 8mm movie film. A short of people, in 1997, I knew I would never see again.

[HMG]

Not really. I feel Internet sharing is so vast, that all images become a blur. Imagine hundreds of years of expansion of cloud imaging. No human will ever figure it out, or be able to assimilate even a tiny bit of it.

i like paper. It lasts longer and takes longer to view, even if shuffling a deck of carte-de-visite.

I need to find my 'Memory Loss' project that dealt with this. I shot it on 8mm movie film. A short of people, in 1997, I knew I would never see again.

It's vast in it's totality, but not necessarily from any one person's perspective. For example, there a many, many photo oriented sites with images, but I only visit 3 on any sort of a regular basis. And, on one of those, I only visit a "group" that is only a tiny fraction of the overall site. I suspect that my practice is not that unusual. I guess that's how we drink from a fire hose.

[Tin Can]

It's vast in it's totality, but not necessarily from any one person's perspective. For example, there a many, many photo oriented sites with images, but I only visit 3 on any sort of a regular basis. And, on one of those, I only visit a "group" that is only a tiny fraction of the overall site. I suspect that my practice is not that unusual. I guess that's how we drink from a fire hose.

I limit myself to this forum, you lucky guys :)

I visit other forums in search of technical knowledge less than for the ultimate meaningful image, which is the argument elsewhere on this forum today. They are in a battle of meaning. Remember Mr Natural?

The only image lately that impressed me was the one shared here, by Michael Darton, of blurry soldier in the sea on D-Day. I went and found that print on a wall at ARTIC last week. I also noticed a few young people were gripped by the iconic image.

The print which is far better viewed on a wall than this low rez Internet special. (http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.246901!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/amd-wartime-1-jpg.jpg)

[axs810]

"If I truly value an image it is never digitized or 'shared'."

:) *thumbs up*

[Jac@stafford.net]

I visit other forums in search of technical knowledge less than for the ultimate meaningful image, which is the argument elsewhere on this forum today. They are in a battle of meaning. Remember Mr Natural?

Yes, of course, and you remind me much of Robert Crumb.

127377 .. 127378

[cuypers1807]

Why do we have to accept the fact that the Internet is the way to get exposure for our photos? The Internet profits from their theft and exploitation, so no solutions are likely to come for their protection. Sites like Pinterest that blatantly defy copyright, stand strongly in this climate of "if it's on the Internet, it must be free."