On Sep 27, 2009, at 8:18 AM, julius wrote:
I have to take Alain’s side in this… respecting his use of the
word “hate” which I understood to be a visceral reaction to the
picture which in me inspired a “wow” and a “hey come take a look at
this!!!” shouted to my beloved in the next room. I can well
understand how such a swirling dynamic mass could engender extreme
reaction not least because of the noise wrought by the huge gray
letters of the copyright notice/ watermark in the background. I
think that the use of the word “hated” in the second sentence was
by contrast a well measured expression of intense dislike.
Well, I am glad that at least some one got it exactly as I meant it.
To tell the truth, for over fifty years, my mathematician wife has
been telling me that I should refrain from making jokes as they
usually turn out to be either very bad or, occasionally, lethal. But
what would be life if one couldn’t take a chance once in a while?
By the way, let me specify, as solemnly as I possibly can, that my
reaction was not to the “swirling dynamic mass” but due to the
aversion to art forms appearing one frequenty acquires after one has
passed one’s prime.
And, in a later post, when I wrote that I could never use it, it was
simply because it would conflict with the map that was imprinted in
my brain over sixty years ago.
Speaking of putting copyright notices on pictures one shows on the
web I decided a long time ago not to bother. Some people have used
them on their own websites. Since they were fans and linked back I
was flattered and it’s good for rankings. I’ve even had people rip
them off me to use in advertising their own figure drawing schools
and on top of it hotlinked to the pictures, i.e. stole my bandwidth
as well! Again however because these sites had a good google
ranking it increased my ranking as well so I thought not to make a
fuss . However, I know that the worldwidepanorama people
The World Wide Panorama
had a problem with a german museum which ripped off their images
wholesale for use in one of their exhibitions without so much as a
by your leave or attribution or anything. This caused the
photographers a lot of unnecessary effort and cash in defending
themselves. Thus I can well understand why one might wish to
plaster copyright notices all over one’s work so as to deter people
from stealing it in the first place. Problem of course is that the
image never looks as good with it as without it.
But there have to be intermediate ways.
Possibly, as with trial software, the image could include a watermark
that appears only after a set time. Or, perhaps, the appearance of
the watermark could be made to be remote-controllable. I also seem to
remember having occasionally encountered images that I was not able
to download, Or, there might be a way to let people use them on their
own website but not print on paper.
More simply, rather than a watermark, why not incorporate in the
image, in the margin or, say, in a corner, a few words to identify
the image or even a url? Moreover, it could probably be coded in such
a way as to require some work to remove—as opposed to just cropped
away, which would then prove intent were it indeed removed.
Intaglio mailing list
Update your subscriptions at: