Copyrighting photographs

For want of a better forum to ask this question, I'll post it here.

How does one go about copyrighting their photos? I see quite a number of the pictures here on MinDat bearing the copyright symbol and I can't help but wonder how one goes about the process. Is it as simple as inserting the symbol along with the photographers' name? Or is it an actual legal process involving fees and registration of some sort?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

EDIT: Never mind ! I got off my duff and found all the answers I was looking for by googling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2009 12:33AM by Peter Szarka.

In the USA, the minute you push the shutter button and the image is taken, that image is Copyrighted to you... Unless you are under a work for hire/contract then it is the property of the person who hired you.

One only needs to submit the image to the Copyright office if/when you would need to go after someone and sue them for damages. Then it is best to simply register them as a collection on a CD and you can register your Copyrights on about 35 images at one time for that one single fee.
[copyright.gov]

normaly a classic copyright I use for my photos its this

[www.chinellatophoto.com]

but for a mineral photo its a bit exagerrated. Calculate for professional photographs its normaly put the copyright, but its good for all put this just for not have legal problems after if a person take a your photo without your permission

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Una fotografia bisogna leggerla, inutile fare mille complimenti quando questa magari ha dominanti di colore sbagliate, troppo contrasto etc... perchè già questo basta per rovinarla

"In the USA, the minute you push the shutter button and the image is taken, that image is Copyrighted to you... Unless you are under a work for hire/contract then it is the property of the person who hired you. "

This is not necessarily true. Instead it depends upon the details of your contract. It is quite possible that even though your are being paid to take pictures, the contact may assign copyright to the photographer.

"In the USA, the minute you push the shutter button and the image is taken, that image is Copyrighted to you... Unless you are under a work for hire/contract then it is the property of the person who hired you. "


in Italy if you take a photo for you is not a problem, if you start to sale o pass for a your photo and the photographer it is noticed you use this, start the legal problems

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Una fotografia bisogna leggerla, inutile fare mille complimenti quando questa magari ha dominanti di colore sbagliate, troppo contrasto etc... perchè già questo basta per rovinarla

Matteo,
I think the reason people will refrain from unauthorized use of photos with prominent text overlays is not to avoid legal problems, but because such photos are effectively defaced (ugly).

It's completely pointless to upload photos with copyright text written onto them for reasons I will explain:

Your photo is protected by copyright anyway. For all nations that are party to the Berne convention (which includes the USA since 1989) copyright is what it says it is, a right. When you create something it is yours. You don't have to assert copyright in order for your copyright to legally belong to you.

Of course, enforcing it is another matter. You need to be able to prove that the image belonged to you in a court of law. There are several ways to do this (and adding text to the image is the least effective). More effective ways include:

a) Using your camera's RAW function (if it has one) to take photos and then processing into a JPEG before uploading the files. Although you can create a JPEG from a RAW file using software provided with the camera, or with Photoshop, the reverse process is not possible. So ownership of the RAW file associated with a photo means the photo is yours - it is a very good method of protecting your rights. This is what I do.

b) Upload your images to mindat. By uploading an image to mindat under your named account we have a datestamp of the date you uploaded the image complete with your account details. If someone subsequently takes the image from mindat for unauthorized use, I have already said on previous occassions that mindat.org is very happy to provide signed statements of evidence to confirm the date, time and original uploader of the photograph, which should prove you had the image first.

c) Write all the images onto a CD-R, seal into an envelope and mail to yourself to keep unopened. But this is probably unnecessary.

You then have to think about who would want to use your photos. You may think your photos are hugely valuable and that there are hundreds of people lining up to steal your precious artwork, but in reality there probably aren't. We have over 200,000 photos on this website. The chances of someone stealing one of yours are not that high.

So who uses photos taken from the web? Book publishers? No. Or anyone else who would have a legitimate need to use your photos. Firstly the resolution from the web is probably too low for them to use, and secondly they would NEVER get into a situation where they would expose themselves to potential lawsuits later.

So anyone who has a serious commercial interest in your images won't steal them regardless of whether you have a copyright statement plastered over them.

The copyright statement will put off amateur "theives", people who want to use your images in a club magazine, or on a powerpoint presentation they're giving to their local mineral group. Except, in the USA at least, they have a perfectly legitimate right to use images in such ways if it's non-commercial under fair-use laws, and even if these laws didn't exist, does it really matter? They wouldn't be in a position to pay you anything anyway. You should be happy your images are being used constructively.

The final, small group, that you could be concerned about are professional and semi-professional users in countries with weak copyright protection - for example one of our members had an image of a mineral reused without permission on a North Korean postage stamp! (although that was taken from a print magazine rather than from online). Similarly if your photos were reused in a chinese mineral magazine would you ever know about it? I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. These people would never pay you for your images anyway.

In these cases even copyright text on your image is pointless - if someone really wants to use your image they'll just crop the text away. A ten-second job in any computer graphics program.

To me the large copyright texts stamped onto images look more like self-promotion than a genuine concern about copyright protection, and as such I have seriously considered banning the use of this on photos uploaded to mindat. But for now, at least, I'll accept that some people are more afraid of copyright abuse than I am, and I'll let them stay.

But, another disadvantage of doing this, we are VERY unlikely now to choose photos uploaded with text of any kind written on the image for "Photo of the Day".

Jolyon

I want to echo the comments of Dominik and Jolyon regarding plastering one's name on one's photos: as a work of art, they are ruined. I don't understand why anyone would want to do this. I would support discouragement of this on Mindat.

When I release collections of my photos (on the rare occasions anyone wants them), I place 'photo by Tony Peterson' in very faint, very small letters in the bottom right-hand corner. In most cases, you have to look very hard to see this. Sort of like a painter putting his signature on his work. But for Mindat pics, or pics I give to magazines or books, I add nothing whatsoever.

Tony

for sure in every newspaper, book etc... the photo is show, its OBLIGATORY put the name of the photograper or of the agency

Mindat Page

[www.mindat.org]


Una fotografia bisogna leggerla, inutile fare mille complimenti quando questa magari ha dominanti di colore sbagliate, troppo contrasto etc... perchè già questo basta per rovinarla

Steve Hardinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In the USA, the minute you push the shutter
> button and the image is taken, that image is
> Copyrighted to you... Unless you are under a work
> for hire/contract then it is the property of the
> person who hired you. "
>
> This is not necessarily true. Instead it depends
> upon the details of your contract. It is quite
> possible that even though your are being paid to
> take pictures, the contact may assign copyright to
> the photographer.

Please read my post, "work for hire"/"work made for hire" is copyrighted by the person doing the hiring, that is standard for that method in a contract. I have been a professional photographer for over 25yrs. and a work for hire shot is always copyrighted by the hirer. The only way it is not is if the contract states differently, but then it would not be a work for hire contract. .


Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's completely pointless to upload photos with
> copyright text written onto them for reasons I
> will explain

On first point, not entirely true. We watermark and stenograph our images so they can even be tracked online. Proper usage of watermarks and stenography and keywords will keep your image protected without destroying it and will also protect it from theft and/or allow you to track down the thief and/or also prove it is yours. When done properly there is no way to remove it in an image editing program without destroying the image.



Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
c) Write all the images onto a CD-R, seal into an envelope and mail to yourself to keep unopened. But this is probably unnecessary.

Not correct. This is known as the "Poor Man's Copyright" and it is a myth. This is completely useless in a court of law as well as for proving anything, sadly. It is merely a waste of time and a cd-r/dvd-r. .

Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> You then have to think about who would want to use
> your photos. You may think your photos are hugely
> valuable and that there are hundreds of people
> lining up to steal your precious artwork, but in
> reality there probably aren't. We have over
> 200,000 photos on this website. The chances of
> someone stealing one of yours are not that high.

I have to disagree. Prior to watermarking and using stenography with our images we had them stolen on a regular basis. We actually had to get legal paperwork and go for cease and desist orders as well as Copyright protection threats, etc. on numerous accounts. Images were being used on postcards, posters, prints for sale, stock photo sale, etc. They were only 800x600 in size too!

Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So who uses photos taken from the web? Book
> publishers? No. Or anyone else who would have a
> legitimate need to use your photos. Firstly the
> resolution from the web is probably too low for
> them to use, and secondly they would NEVER get
> into a situation where they would expose
> themselves to potential lawsuits later.
>
> So anyone who has a serious commercial interest in
> your images won't steal them regardless of whether
> you have a copyright statement plastered over
> them.
>

Again, just not correct. It happens far more often then you think. Typically about once or twice per month we have a user on the professional photo forums coming in with an issue of their image being stolen/used without permission by corporations/businesses! They scour the web for images and it is cheaper to use them illegally and take the chance of the user finding out and settling out of court then it is for them to buy the rights to use the image in most cases, sadly. They also know most would not even know how to go about filing suit against them nor be able to afford the legal costs of doing so in most cases! In fact, it is typically legit and legal businesses/corporations who are caught using stolen images as stock photos. It is not the business the advertisement is for typically, but rather their ad department or ad company they hired to do their ads that are the true culprits. There are far too many loop holes and "issues" with the copyright laws as well as the photographers being able to afford the legal costs for many companies to worry about it. . Just a few weeks ago a friend of mine found one of his images on the front cover of an Atlas for sale in a convenience store!!! He never did get much of anything as he couldn't afford the crazy $2K+ intial legal fees to do anything about it! So he settled for a measly couple bucks out of court. Copyright watermarks do indeed deter the theft if done properly.

Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In these cases even copyright text on your image
> is pointless - if someone really wants to use your
> image they'll just crop the text away. A
> ten-second job in any computer graphics program.

Again, if done properly, they can not be removed without damaging the image enough to not bother.

Your best bet for protection is to:
•only post 500x### pixels max
•JPEG level 8 or lower compression
•Copyright
•Watermark
•Stenography
•Fill in IPTC Data, Description, and Keywords
•Shoot in RAW

My software is setup automatically to add the proper information, copyrights, watermarks, and stenography.

I used to not bother as well and only posted in 800x600 resolution. Until we had to continuously be filing legal paperwork and sending out stuff and fighting to protect our work. Since starting doing the above list, we no longer have any issues except the occasional blogger or website forum using our images, which is actually no big deal as it becomes free advertisement since our URL is on the images, another benefit of watermarking. . By filling in description and IPTC data will now get contacted by those wishing to license/use our work, instead of them just taking it! Now, we do depend partially on our photographic work for income, so it is important to us to protect it. It may not be worth it to others.

But folks should at the very least understand why some people choose to protect their work. When your work gets stolen it is the same as taking food off the table.

Same useful links on the subject:
[www.photosecrets.com]
[www.templetons.com]
[www.photolaw.net]
[www.rightsforartists.com]

P.S. Registering with the Copyright Office is ONLY necessary if/when you have to pursue litigation!!!

Hello,

I am now photographing 38+ X years minerals and publishing pictures. I like to have a little control how my my pictures are used.

I also have seen pictures of mine at websites without any prior permission and I also don´t like the idea that my pictures are used in presentations given without my permission. I would not give for example that for use with an esoteric context and also prefer that I present pictures myself. If the are used without asking me then at least its some work to remove the text, if the Text remains then ...

Jolyon is right, the risk that one of the Mindat pics is "stolen" is low, but mostly because only a part of the mindat pictures fulfil any quality rules. Often picture show the box, strange textured background, putty or glue, wrong colour balance or suffer from sharpness. From my point of view : A bad picture of a super specimen is still a bad picture and not the specimen has to be changed, its the photographer who should improve skills and equipment used.

The pictures I post in the internet will always have text and copyright in it, at least at a full screen size, this is the price to be free. I can also provide pictures without this text insert, e.g for print use, if I am asked . This will be free for a limited use in non commercial context, and a fee for commercial use.

Of course the text can removed, if one is doing that, I hope at least he feels bad doing so.

Regards

Volker

Jamey Swisher Wrote:

> On first point, not entirely true. We watermark
> and stenograph our images so they can even be
> tracked online. Proper usage of watermarks and
> stenography and keywords will keep your image
> protected without destroying it and will also
> protect it from theft and/or allow you to track
> down the thief and/or also prove it is yours. When
> done properly there is no way to remove it in an
> image editing program without destroying the
> image.

A very good point and something I missed out previously. Steongraphy is a great way to hide information inside an image
so that it can help protect your copyright without affecting the visual image.

> Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
> c) Write all the images onto a CD-R, seal into an
> envelope and mail to yourself to keep unopened.
> But this is probably unnecessary.
>
> Not correct. This is known as the "Poor Man's
> Copyright" and it is a myth. This is completely
> useless in a court of law as well as for proving
> anything, sadly. It is merely a waste of time and
> a cd-r/dvd-r. .

I did suspect as much, which is why I posted my a) and b) which I assume you agree with. Doing those two things I listed mean you are protected about as well as you possibly can be.

> I have to disagree. Prior to watermarking and
> using stenography with our images we had them
> stolen on a regular basis. We actually had to get
> legal paperwork and go for cease and desist orders
> as well as Copyright protection threats, etc. on
> numerous accounts. Images were being used on
> postcards, posters, prints for sale, stock photo
> sale, etc. They were only 800x600 in size too!

The mineral world is a relatively small community. The argument I am proposing over how to protect copyright on mineral images won't necessarily work in the more general world of photography. If people start stealing images then it soon gets found out and dealt with.


> They scour the web for
> images and it is cheaper to use them illegally and
> take the chance of the user finding out and
> settling out of court then it is for them to buy
> the rights to use the image in most cases, sadly.

This just is nonsense. I use a lot of commercial artwork on the web for my job. Much of it I get from genuine
free sources (such as sxc.hu), but when I pay for it, it's generally only a few dollars per image for unlimited web use. Commercial use online of an image such as a mineral photo from a mindat photographer may be a few tens of dollars, depending on context, and a bit more for print use, but as much as many photographers would wish to disagree, the market rates for commercial use of images isn't high enough to make people want to risk court.

The real reason for these problems is mostly down to ignorance or laziness. Staff member asked to put an image on their website, and they don't understand the implications of taking something from online. This isn't likely to happen much in our field of interest.

> anything as he couldn't afford the crazy $2K+
> intial legal fees to do anything about it! So he
> settled for a measly couple bucks out of court.
> Copyright watermarks do indeed deter the theft if
> done properly.

One could argue that he's a couple of bucks richer now than if he had protected his image!


> Again, if done properly, they can not be removed
> without damaging the image enough to not bother.

Wrong answer! That means they damage the image.


> Your best bet for protection is to:
> •only post 500x### pixels max
> •JPEG level 8 or lower compression
> •Copyright

All of these things degrade the image unacceptably (in my mind) and detract from the whole point of sharing images.

I'm not holding a gun up to anyone's head demanding they upload images to mindat (and I know, Jamey, that you haven't uploaded any yet - and that's fine). All I'm asking is that if you do choose to upload images (and remember, for commercial photographers you're getting a FREE gallery here to show your work to the world and sell your services and/or usage rights to photos) then you do it properly.

And for me that means uploading an untainted image at a reasonable resolution (at least 800px).

Look at mineral magazines - do you see copyright messages plastered over photos printed in magazines? No, of course not. They have a copyright message underneath exactly as they do on mindat. This is what I want to see happening here, I'd like to see an end to these messages plastered on images.

I'm not going to ban the use of images containing obvious copyright messages or text. But if you do:

a) they won't normally be on the Photo of the Day
b) they won't normally be accepted for "Best Mineral" section
c) Please try to keep it non-distracting to the viewer. Grey text in a lower corner of a page may work well. Experiment with something that you feel works in terms of marking your copyright but without drawing attention away from the photo itself.

And I want to thank the vast majority amateur and professional photographers who continue to upload photos to mindat at high quality and without any additonal text. Mindat is ten years old this year. The quality of photos uploaded continues to grow and grow, it never ceases to amaze me what wonderful photos are created.

Jolyon

It is worth pointing out that....as a result of posting my work on Mindat, I have been contacted by both magazine and book publishers who give me free copies of the publication in exchange for few photos. The net worth of those publications far exceeds the paltry $$ I have been able to collect by selling my images on-line or at mineral shows.

Thank you, Mindat!

Tony

I want to apologise if I upset anyone with my views on copyright messages on mindat photos.

Can I just say again that we value ALL contributions, regardless of whether they have copyright messages on them or not.

I have given my reasons as to why I think copyright text on images is unnecessary, but the choice to do this is entirely up to you.

Exceptional images uploaded could still be selected for photo of the day even with copyright text attached - my only reason for limiting their use in this way is because the scaled-down version can sometimes look ugly with the text.

Perhaps a solution for this is to allow photographers to create their own thumbnail version for upload as an option, which would solve this problem and still allow copyright text on the main (large) photo. If this is something that people want to do then I'll look at implementing it.

Jolyon

Jolyon

Putting your name on the photograph really is pointless and deminishes the enjoyment of viewing the image. As long as MinDat has a rider which states the rules (and it is read) that should suffice. From reading the comments on this subject I can see that the rules in various countries are pretty much the same for the most part. Here, anything written, recorded by any means what-so-ever has automatic copyright which is valid until fifty years after the persons death. I have had to become aware of copyright from other interests that I am involved with.

Still, I think you should fill out the MinDat form when adding photographs but it is not necessary to plaster it all over the photo since it doesn't really get you anything.

Al

Everyone is entitled to opinions. But to deny the FACTS is just plain ignorant. You may disagree but there are ad agencies that scour websites via Google and other search engines using images found there regardless if "copyrighted" or not. If it doesn't happen then why have we had it happen 3 time to us in less then two years!? That is pretty good odds with all the images available online. It happens to the pros on the forums I frequent 1-2x per month! It is a rampant problem whether you chose to realize it or not changes nothing.

While you feel copyrights and watermarks degrade images, it is the ONLY way to protect them from the thieves. Blame the thieves not the photogs. It is either watermark them or don't share them at all. Either or is fine with me personally as I have no need to "share" my images, they are taken for commercial reasons. I have no issues allowing non-commercial usage, but there will still be copyrights intact if used on the web.

You don't see watermarks across images in print for obvious reasons, there is no need to do so. Yes, people can still use them, but they would have to scan them, which doing so from a magazine leads to very low quality images and they are also printed so small that they can not be reused for anything in print even if scanned. Besides, people don't scour magazines and publications looking to steal images, they do however do it on the internet every day all day. Also, in magazines one has and gets credit for their work, when folks steal images online your only hope typically of credit is to have your name and website overlayed onto the image.

Comparing printed venues to the internet is comparing apples to oranges.

If you were in the situations we have been in a few times and lost the amount of income we have due to theft, you would soon realize why many do protect their images in this was as it does work to stop the nonsense. Since using these methods we have not had a single image stolen for commercial purposes! Yet before this, we averaged at least 1-2x per year of ours being stolen and used, and that is just the ones we found out about, I am sure there were many more!

There are and have been polls done and the majority of folks in the USA using the internet think any content they find is free to use however they chose to use it! They think any image/picture found on a search engine is free to use for whatever they want to use it for. So until folks stop stealing things that are not theirs you will see people protecting their properties.

No one condemned you for your choice to upload images without protections in place, so why do so to those that chose to do so!? Seems like a double standard to me. Like I said, I know many who have this same attitude, and then once they find their work stolen they mindset changes and changes quickly.

As for costs/charges, not sure where you get the fees you are referring to, maybe "penny stock" websites, but most real pros don't bother with those jokers. I have never licensed an image for under $100, even for internet usage. Once paid for an image I have no worries about watermarks and protecting it as my investment in the image is now taken care of. There are a lot of costs involved in commercial photography that need to be recouped. By sharing them online with watermarks it allows folks to view them and use non-commercially at no cost, it is called generosity. It is no skin off my back to not share at all then since folks don't like nor want watermarks. I have no problem with that. The only time I post without watermarks are snapshots that didn't take much time nor setup to take. Time costs money. For every image stolen and used from a professional photographer food gets taken off their table and bills go unpaid.

[www.editorialphoto.com]
[www.sethresnick.com]

For those who think it is NOT a problem, I suggest you browse through this:
[fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >www.google.com]

Also, as for some of the websites, especially the one you mention sxc.hu, you are NOT always safe using their services! There are MANY images on there that do NOT belong to nor do the posters have permission to use them, but they still uploaded them there! There are even images from famous nature photogs on there that are not allowed to be. Maybe they have changed over the last year, who knows. But last I was there I found plenty of recognized images that did NOT belong on there and were not property of the user who uploaded them. I of course sent notice to the website, but never did hear back about it. Had the photogs' watermarked their images there wouldn't have been a problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2009 11:18PM by Jamey Swisher.

Jamey

For someone who has never uploaded images to mindat, you sure seem eager to say a lot about this subject!

sxc.hu is now owned by getty images, so it's pretty safe to use. I agree it was dubious when it started.

I'm not condemning anyone for uploading images with copyright text attached. I'm just saying I find it ugly, and unnecessary. You're entitled to disagree. I will continue to try to persuade people not to do it. But if people feel (for the reasons you outlined) that they have to, then that's fine.

But if you are really concerned about the copyright of your images and want to prevent anyone from stealing them, continue what you're doing now and don't put them online at all.

Jolyon

It happened to me that my photos without my consent was used for Commercial purpose without my consent.
Were used to show minerals as decoration.
Photographs were downloaded in approximately 800x600 format
and they made of it in print format on paper 20x30 cm.
The quality of the decoration of the format (800x600) has been absolutely disastrous. Even had enough nerve to remove a photograph my copyright. After warning that use photos without my permission they not feel very well.
I myself started to use the copyright in the bottom right corner [www.mindat.org] .

It does not matter if it's there or if not it's there.
I fully agree with Jolyon, in the event that in any case, I do not want anyone to illegally withdraw and enjoyed my photo so it will not give the
website or give it to a site that is designed for that purpose (photo bank for commercial downloading photos, etc.).
Thanks Mindat I have a 1400 photo by Mindat
some of my photos have become very familiar.
As a result, as Jolyon writes, using the format about
800x600 is very difficult to make a good quality photo in a magazine or poster, etc.
Mindat is my own gallery and especially thanks Mindat my work know a lot of people.

I started to insert text into the lower right corner, because if you download photos downloaded pictures without information about author.
But I put it there instead of the reasons that people who download and store it somewhere in the PC know that this photograph I made myself.

I see it more as a signature of my work [www.mindat.org] .

I agree with Jolyon - in monitoring the images that can interfere.
I'll make a smaller and less intrusive.

Thanks to the photo spread as the Internet site - knows my work has a lot of people and also because it is a photo signed.

I will do so in order to minimize disturbing viewing.

Friends I must use translator and I hope that translate text good understand.

Vita

Thank you Vita!

Joylon,
The point is is most posters so far have basically insulted those placing marks on their images. That is a total load of doodoo! Someone wants to come share an image out of their generosity and then get slammed because of it just because they have protected their interests and investments. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth! I hadn't shared any images here yet because I have not had time to upload any. I have a lot on my plate currently. I had fully intended to share quite a bit/few of them, but after this thread do not plan on doing so. It is quite obvious folks don't want them. I, unlike many, do not need pats on the back, ohhhs & ahhhs, great images, and all that BS. My photography has been proven decades ago. I merely share my images online to be generous and helpful hoping maybe someone might see something they never saw before and enjoy seeing something they may never see again. But you and others here have made it quite obvious you all want your cake and eat it too. I have never been to a "sharing" website where people are so greedy and inconsiderate to be frank, nor as insulting just because someone wants to protect an investment and their property. Have printed venue not online, I would gladly donate unprotected images for print and be happy with a copyright below the image, online, not going to happen aside from snapshots.

Most places like this I frequent, and I frequent a majority of them, are more then happy to just have the quality of images shared and could care less about unobtrusive watermarks or copyrights to protect the photographer's work. They concentrate on the fact that the shooter was generous enough to freely share his/her work in the first place, not nitpick and quarrel over them protecting it. Very rude IMHO, especially the way it was handled in this thread!

As for 800x600 not being large enough, you are again, incorrect. There are softwares, some even free, that can easily turn a good quality 800x600 into a large enough image file to be printed at 8x10" or larger!

I applaud those who do not care about their images, more power to them and keep doing what you are doing. But some of us depend on our work to make a living and can not afford to continuously have lost images to theft and illegal usages. I had actually been slowly putting a folder together of images for this website, as was my sole intention when joined as well as to help others with photographic issues. I even had a box with minerals to photograph as soon as I got my studio set back up(we just moved last month). But it is quite obvious they are not wanted nor desired, so I will no longer bother with them.

Folks should keep in mind when they post things, that there are two sides to every subject! And watch how you phrase things! It is quite insulting to others to degrade them and their images simply over some non-obtrusive watermarks. How would you feel if someone cam in and nitpicked the heck out of your images for their obvious lack of quality, simple basic mistakes in white balance... focus... DOF...etc., and lack of skill in taking them? No one would like that a whole lot unless they asked for a serious critique! Saying you don't like watermarks is one thing, trash talking images because of them and slamming people for using them and implying and/or stating it is useless when in reality it is just the opposite is an entirely different deal to say the least and is quite insulting!

I am done on this subject and have said my peace. But in the future you may want to consider the above paragraph and think before posting! Put yourself in the other sides' shoes and see if you would like to be slammed and insulted!