Image watermarking [Site]
2007 Jul 5
Think it a good idea as well... you have some really nice food pics... and I have seen it done on torontofoodies.com. I have used some of the food pics myself so if it's copyright you are worried about, there are lots of food pics on the web.
Putting it on profile pics assumes you are worried about some deviant using those inappropriately... here you are talking about privacy.... and the decision is up to the individual... witness facebook.... if you put your pic on the web you are effectively giving permission for it to be used...
As for being secure on the web... you are on the web already...
My suggestion is put the watermark on the food pics and let the participants decide whether they want their 'real' pics to be shown... and if so, watermark them... (who knows maybe they used someone else's pic from the web?)
Putting it on profile pics assumes you are worried about some deviant using those inappropriately... here you are talking about privacy.... and the decision is up to the individual... witness facebook.... if you put your pic on the web you are effectively giving permission for it to be used...
As for being secure on the web... you are on the web already...
My suggestion is put the watermark on the food pics and let the participants decide whether they want their 'real' pics to be shown... and if so, watermark them... (who knows maybe they used someone else's pic from the web?)
2007 Jul 5
They can be made smaller and lighter but then they become less effective. I already compromised security for aesthetics by placing the watermark at the bottom of the picture instead of diagonally across it like you sometimes see. Let's live with this for a while and maybe I can experiment with more discreet watermarks.
BTW, on facebook you can set things up so only your actual friends can see your photo (other than the little tiny thumbnail that everyone sees).
BTW, on facebook you can set things up so only your actual friends can see your photo (other than the little tiny thumbnail that everyone sees).
2007 Jul 6
Technically you are correct, which is partly why places like Facebook etc all make you agree to crazy terms when you sign up saying that you give THEM all rights to anything you post, and that you won't post anything you don't have rights to. OttawaFoodies is not trying to take ownership away from the poster, but is instead using the mechanism to prevent other websites (or malicious users etc) from re-using content posted to OttawaFoodies. This is a measure to protect the OttawaFoodies users, not constrain or rip them off. If people (you?) get picky about this, Fresh Foodie will either have to make everyone agree to a license to participate, or will have to remove the ability to post photos. I for one think the simpler 'just add the watermark, and don't make it complex' solution is the best one right now.
2007 Jul 6
You don't have rights to modify images you don't own, either.
From here on you might want to have users agree to a non-exclusive license to display and modify works they upload, but you'll be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the implied license from uploading is anything but one for display.
Regardless of whether or not you use a circle-C you are putting your name on works you did not create. Taking credit for other people's work is dishonest regardless of whatever loopholes your lawyer might find for you.
I'm really disappointed with your decision, especially since there was no discussion with the people who are providing you with content in the first place. (I didn't even see any discussion about the problem, let alone this solution to it.) It was a bit alarming that you didn't have a statement about content licensing when I signed up but I figured you were doing what the rest of the collaborative Web tends to do.
Attributing other people's work to your site like this is just plain slimy. We're not your authors doing works for hire; your site is software we happen to use. Those things aren't yours.
From here on you might want to have users agree to a non-exclusive license to display and modify works they upload, but you'll be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the implied license from uploading is anything but one for display.
Regardless of whether or not you use a circle-C you are putting your name on works you did not create. Taking credit for other people's work is dishonest regardless of whatever loopholes your lawyer might find for you.
I'm really disappointed with your decision, especially since there was no discussion with the people who are providing you with content in the first place. (I didn't even see any discussion about the problem, let alone this solution to it.) It was a bit alarming that you didn't have a statement about content licensing when I signed up but I figured you were doing what the rest of the collaborative Web tends to do.
Attributing other people's work to your site like this is just plain slimy. We're not your authors doing works for hire; your site is software we happen to use. Those things aren't yours.
2007 Jul 6
Did you not read Pete's reply at ALL? FF is not trying to say the photos are HIS, he is trying to prevent other websites from doing just that. I don't think anyone else is confused about this except for you, so don't speak for the rest of us by using the "we" and "we're" terms. Also, please refrain from calling our beloved FF names such as "slimy" as it is uncalled for.
"You don't have right to modify images you don't own" - not %100 true actually. The internet is so new that there are still laws in debate over this - just look at Perez Hilton's lawsuits, of which he has already WON many. Many things that get posted on the net become public property and the courts have not yet reached definitive decisions on many of these related issues.
FF: Can this be solved by adding a little note under pics that say "This photo has been posted thanks to ________" just as you do for new restaurant entries. That way everyone can feel that they are getting credit for their precious photos, and your watermarks can prevent other sites from using them. Just my suggestion.
"You don't have right to modify images you don't own" - not %100 true actually. The internet is so new that there are still laws in debate over this - just look at Perez Hilton's lawsuits, of which he has already WON many. Many things that get posted on the net become public property and the courts have not yet reached definitive decisions on many of these related issues.
FF: Can this be solved by adding a little note under pics that say "This photo has been posted thanks to ________" just as you do for new restaurant entries. That way everyone can feel that they are getting credit for their precious photos, and your watermarks can prevent other sites from using them. Just my suggestion.
2007 Jul 6
I read his reply, I just don't like his answer. And I'm not inclined to give him the benefit the doubt when his answer says that he's going to wait until he talks to a lawyer; that's not exactly a display of good faith.
And he is saying that they're his, because that's what people use watermarks for, to attribute images. Doubly so in that he's using a circle-C to do it; that's not just attributing but also claiming legal authorship rights. If he doesn't mean to say that they're his, he needs to stop doing the thing that does say that they're his.
Things that get posted on the net absolutely do not become public property. There are exactly two ways that a work enters the public domain: its copyright expires after a number of decades, or the holder of copyright expressly releases it. None of this has anything to do with the Internet, because the same laws apply to it as to anything else. Brad Templeton's copyright myths FAQ is based on American law but is still a good starting point, while CIPO's FAQ is a bit less user-friendly but clears up some important Canadianisms:
www.templetons.com
strategis.gc.ca
None of this has to do with Perez Hilton, either, because Perez Hilton has been sued for using photographers' images without *any* license or assignment, under a fair use defense. Canada does not have fair use provisions at all; our legal heritage got us the much more restrictive British "fair dealing". But even fair dealing does not matter here because of the implied license for display entered into when users upload. (If FF had taken images off of some other website and used them in a discussion of the images themselves, he would be engaging in fair dealing; that's not what happens here.)
Resizing the images is irrelevant. An exact copy of a work is not a derivative work, it is a copy. A watermarked image is not an exact copy and is therefore a derivative work.
And I didn't say that FF is slimy; I said that asserting copyright over uploaded materials or attributing those materials to the website is slimy, because it is. I don't think it's done maliciously here, at least not yet; I think it's just incredibly poor judgment. But I'm left completely in awe that someone in 2007 would think of doing it because it is done maliciously all over the place. Have you never heard of ebaumsworld?
www.google.com
And yes, I do speak for everyone when I say that the people on this website are not authors for hire, unless I'm misinformed and some of the authors here work for FF. Author for hire is a specific legal relationship which would result in authorship rights being assigned to FF instead of the creator of the work, and websites which legitimately claim copyright over all their material typically obtain that material as work for hire.
As for the copyright notice at the bottom -- I'm trying really hard not to read that as "it's OK to claim rights illegitimately to your images because I claim rights illegitimately to your text too", but I'm having a hard time coming up with any other interpretation of that. It's not OK to claim rights over creative works when you don't have those rights.
Look, here's the thing: This is a useful site, and while I don't tend to contribute a whole lot -- Candice is more the reviewer, I'm just the eater -- it's a breath of fresh air compared to the other Ottawa food review sites. But I can't in good conscience participate in a website that abuses its contributors' rights in their contributions. A community website like LiveJournal, Flickr or Metafilter, which explicitly states that it respects users' ownership of their works, makes clear that it prioritizes its users over their contributions; here you're sending the opposite message. I don't think that's a good message to send.
And he is saying that they're his, because that's what people use watermarks for, to attribute images. Doubly so in that he's using a circle-C to do it; that's not just attributing but also claiming legal authorship rights. If he doesn't mean to say that they're his, he needs to stop doing the thing that does say that they're his.
Things that get posted on the net absolutely do not become public property. There are exactly two ways that a work enters the public domain: its copyright expires after a number of decades, or the holder of copyright expressly releases it. None of this has anything to do with the Internet, because the same laws apply to it as to anything else. Brad Templeton's copyright myths FAQ is based on American law but is still a good starting point, while CIPO's FAQ is a bit less user-friendly but clears up some important Canadianisms:
www.templetons.com
strategis.gc.ca
None of this has to do with Perez Hilton, either, because Perez Hilton has been sued for using photographers' images without *any* license or assignment, under a fair use defense. Canada does not have fair use provisions at all; our legal heritage got us the much more restrictive British "fair dealing". But even fair dealing does not matter here because of the implied license for display entered into when users upload. (If FF had taken images off of some other website and used them in a discussion of the images themselves, he would be engaging in fair dealing; that's not what happens here.)
Resizing the images is irrelevant. An exact copy of a work is not a derivative work, it is a copy. A watermarked image is not an exact copy and is therefore a derivative work.
And I didn't say that FF is slimy; I said that asserting copyright over uploaded materials or attributing those materials to the website is slimy, because it is. I don't think it's done maliciously here, at least not yet; I think it's just incredibly poor judgment. But I'm left completely in awe that someone in 2007 would think of doing it because it is done maliciously all over the place. Have you never heard of ebaumsworld?
www.google.com
And yes, I do speak for everyone when I say that the people on this website are not authors for hire, unless I'm misinformed and some of the authors here work for FF. Author for hire is a specific legal relationship which would result in authorship rights being assigned to FF instead of the creator of the work, and websites which legitimately claim copyright over all their material typically obtain that material as work for hire.
As for the copyright notice at the bottom -- I'm trying really hard not to read that as "it's OK to claim rights illegitimately to your images because I claim rights illegitimately to your text too", but I'm having a hard time coming up with any other interpretation of that. It's not OK to claim rights over creative works when you don't have those rights.
Look, here's the thing: This is a useful site, and while I don't tend to contribute a whole lot -- Candice is more the reviewer, I'm just the eater -- it's a breath of fresh air compared to the other Ottawa food review sites. But I can't in good conscience participate in a website that abuses its contributors' rights in their contributions. A community website like LiveJournal, Flickr or Metafilter, which explicitly states that it respects users' ownership of their works, makes clear that it prioritizes its users over their contributions; here you're sending the opposite message. I don't think that's a good message to send.
2007 Jul 6
I, uh...
I don't like it.
It looks lousy, and my pictures are not ottawafoodies.com's pictures.
I have no objections if there's a little box to tick when I'm uploading photographs that says "Attribute copyright to ottawafoodies.com and add watermark?" But as a default -- no, no, not good. I had some head-scratching over whose photos they were when I first saw it: not good.
I understand the spirit in which it was done, but.
"A community website like LiveJournal, Flickr or Metafilter, which explicitly states that it respects users' ownership of their works, makes clear that it prioritizes its users over their contributions; here you're sending the opposite message. I don't think that's a good message to send."
Yeah. I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. I use those three sites, and certainly never wished they'd add their own copyright to my stuff to prevent it from being used elsewhere.
In theory, you could wait a few years, kick off every user on this site, and have a fee-for-access site boasting thousands of great images of local food that nobody else had. I'm not for a moment thinking that that's really what's going on here or anything, but -- why...
Oh, man. Bad idea. Sorry, FF: I just don't like.
Edit: just realised that it's been done on every picture ever uploaded. Many of which I can no longer remove if I disagree with the new policy. Not kosher. And putting "(c) ottawafoodies.com" on pictures that I and other users have clearly ripped off from other web sites isn't going to make ottawafoodies.com any corporate friends. Given that 99.99% of those images are "I ate this brand of X, and loved it!" I can't imagine any company in its right mind complaining about the lifting of the images, but with a (c)? Eeek.
I don't like it.
It looks lousy, and my pictures are not ottawafoodies.com's pictures.
I have no objections if there's a little box to tick when I'm uploading photographs that says "Attribute copyright to ottawafoodies.com and add watermark?" But as a default -- no, no, not good. I had some head-scratching over whose photos they were when I first saw it: not good.
I understand the spirit in which it was done, but.
"A community website like LiveJournal, Flickr or Metafilter, which explicitly states that it respects users' ownership of their works, makes clear that it prioritizes its users over their contributions; here you're sending the opposite message. I don't think that's a good message to send."
Yeah. I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. I use those three sites, and certainly never wished they'd add their own copyright to my stuff to prevent it from being used elsewhere.
In theory, you could wait a few years, kick off every user on this site, and have a fee-for-access site boasting thousands of great images of local food that nobody else had. I'm not for a moment thinking that that's really what's going on here or anything, but -- why...
Oh, man. Bad idea. Sorry, FF: I just don't like.
Edit: just realised that it's been done on every picture ever uploaded. Many of which I can no longer remove if I disagree with the new policy. Not kosher. And putting "(c) ottawafoodies.com" on pictures that I and other users have clearly ripped off from other web sites isn't going to make ottawafoodies.com any corporate friends. Given that 99.99% of those images are "I ate this brand of X, and loved it!" I can't imagine any company in its right mind complaining about the lifting of the images, but with a (c)? Eeek.
2007 Jul 6
Wheee... food for thought! :-)
How would you feel if a photo you uploaded here suddenly appeared on another website, with no credit given? As Pete and FiH pointed out, this is what I'm trying to prevent. I'm open to other ideas on how to address this. Right now I'm favouring FiH's suggestion to put the user name of the picture owner as a watermark to at least give credit where credit is due...
How would you feel if a photo you uploaded here suddenly appeared on another website, with no credit given? As Pete and FiH pointed out, this is what I'm trying to prevent. I'm open to other ideas on how to address this. Right now I'm favouring FiH's suggestion to put the user name of the picture owner as a watermark to at least give credit where credit is due...
2007 Jul 6
I have to say I agree with kmennie and mendel. If I want to watermark my images that's my business. This is getting a little too big brother for me :) No offense, FF, but I can take care of my own intellectual property. I appreciate what the thought was, but I think it was badly executed. I would be pretty upset if livejournal or flickr slapped a big (c) watermark on the images I upload to those places.
2007 Jul 6
I have removed the watermark until we can agree on something. I'm thinking the contributor of an image should have the *option* to add a watermark. This would allow people to decide whether they want their contributions to be exclusive to this site or available for use by the internet at large.
Personally, I just want the watermark on my images. I thought I was doing the rest of you a service.
Personally, I just want the watermark on my images. I thought I was doing the rest of you a service.
2007 Jul 6
I wanted to add some background here.
I was surfing the Internet for a review about Miga restaurant. (We wanted to arrange a group gathering event there.) We came across a blog site that talked about Miga. The photos look so familiar and I later realized that the photos were Mark’s photos posted at OttawaFoodies.
So, I sent a note to Mark and told him that his photos were “borrowed”. As a result, Mark took the action and put the watermark to each photo. He did all these because of his good intention to protect our photos.
If you don’t like the watermark, please provide more constructive comment. Mark has been pretty good making the changes requested.
Here is the blog that I talked about:
eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com
How do you feel?
I was surfing the Internet for a review about Miga restaurant. (We wanted to arrange a group gathering event there.) We came across a blog site that talked about Miga. The photos look so familiar and I later realized that the photos were Mark’s photos posted at OttawaFoodies.
So, I sent a note to Mark and told him that his photos were “borrowed”. As a result, Mark took the action and put the watermark to each photo. He did all these because of his good intention to protect our photos.
If you don’t like the watermark, please provide more constructive comment. Mark has been pretty good making the changes requested.
Here is the blog that I talked about:
eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com
How do you feel?
2007 Jul 6
People should be aware of what they put on the internet and how it can be used/manipulated. If you want a watermark, add one yourself before you upload it on the website. If not, then don't. Personally, I don't care if someone takes my hanging squid photo and puts their face on it or adds a photo of Nicole Richie with photoshopped white flecks coming out of her nose. I put it out there, and if people want to eff with it, so be it. If you're a professional food photographer, you should have known better... essentially, add a watermark if you feel it's necessary, otherwise, you (the user who uploaded the photos) deal with the consequences of uploading your photography to a site that the public has access to.
2007 Jul 6
Thanks FF. My pix get stolen, it's my problem.
I'm admittedly surprised by the audacity of eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com, which has a number of purloined pix from this site, not just FF's. Ashley's, too, possibly others.
Note:
eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com
"By the way, for those who want my comments on individual restaurants in Ottawa, plus other people's comments, visit www.OttawaFoodies.com. My alias is 'LiveToEat'."
LiveToEat, the "these Koreans all look the same," "All the japs go there… can’t compete with the chinks…" guy. I'm sure he's a lovely fellow.
I'm not going to buy that anybody's paying attention to his blog, but -- hey, LiveToEat -- WTF? Sheesh.
I'm admittedly surprised by the audacity of eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com, which has a number of purloined pix from this site, not just FF's. Ashley's, too, possibly others.
Note:
eatdrinkottawa.blogspot.com
"By the way, for those who want my comments on individual restaurants in Ottawa, plus other people's comments, visit www.OttawaFoodies.com. My alias is 'LiveToEat'."
LiveToEat, the "these Koreans all look the same," "All the japs go there… can’t compete with the chinks…" guy. I'm sure he's a lovely fellow.
I'm not going to buy that anybody's paying attention to his blog, but -- hey, LiveToEat -- WTF? Sheesh.
2007 Jul 6
Thanks for reconsidering. I understand that it was good intentions, and I think you just ended up wading into something that's a bigger deal than it might have seemed at first.
What I'd recommend considering -- and what I do on forums I host -- is to go with a copyright statement in the footer that reads something like
Site copyright 2006-2007 Your Real Name
All user-submitted content owned by its author.
and then when people sign up, have them tick a box that grants you a non-exclusive license to display their contributions on the site. (Note that assigning copyright to "ottawafoodies.com" is probably not what you want unless there's a legal entity by that name.)
You could also encourage people to adopt Creative Commons licenses for their contributions:
www.creativecommons.ca/
thus encouraging reuse, either verbatim or derivative. But open licensing is probably new to a lot of people and doesn't always meet comfort levels. (I suppose it's a good example of how wide opinions are on watermarking -- someone using my photos for noncommercial purposes with attribution is fine by me, but reattributing? Not so much.)
And now we're* off to Bluesfest. Bela Fleck, Kid Koala, and a beavertail for me tonight!
* Candice and I. I'm not suggesting everyone here's off to Bluesfest ;-)
What I'd recommend considering -- and what I do on forums I host -- is to go with a copyright statement in the footer that reads something like
Site copyright 2006-2007 Your Real Name
All user-submitted content owned by its author.
and then when people sign up, have them tick a box that grants you a non-exclusive license to display their contributions on the site. (Note that assigning copyright to "ottawafoodies.com" is probably not what you want unless there's a legal entity by that name.)
You could also encourage people to adopt Creative Commons licenses for their contributions:
www.creativecommons.ca/
thus encouraging reuse, either verbatim or derivative. But open licensing is probably new to a lot of people and doesn't always meet comfort levels. (I suppose it's a good example of how wide opinions are on watermarking -- someone using my photos for noncommercial purposes with attribution is fine by me, but reattributing? Not so much.)
And now we're* off to Bluesfest. Bela Fleck, Kid Koala, and a beavertail for me tonight!
* Candice and I. I'm not suggesting everyone here's off to Bluesfest ;-)
2007 Jul 7
I am glad my comments have incited such comment and activity.... Everything in context however...
I think the pictures are great and 'copying is the highest form of complement'.
As for the comments on my web site... they are mine and mine alone so if you don't like them, don't read them....
I am here to read your comments... in context as well...
I think the pictures are great and 'copying is the highest form of complement'.
As for the comments on my web site... they are mine and mine alone so if you don't like them, don't read them....
I am here to read your comments... in context as well...
2007 Jul 7
Well, I fully understand that my photos will be used by others having access to this site. I don't mind. But I would appreciate it very much if the person "borrowing" the photo can indicate the source of the photos (giving credit to the original photographers).
According to Wikipedia, the definition of Plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.
According to Wikipedia, the definition of Plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.
2007 Jul 8
So, I wrote a long follow up to this topic, and it somehow got eaten, and since I almost never leave well enough alone...I'll restate what I said (but with less verbiage) Some people here are misguided as to what 'rights' using the internet provides them (or more appropriately what rights using services preserves for you) The vaunted 'flikr' example is a great one. In their terms of service (which you have to agree to in order to join up) you clearly say that you don't give them copyright of your photos, but you do give them the right to copy, display, and modify your images for the purpose of providing the service. By my reading, this means it is well within their 'rights' to watermark the images uploaded, and I challenge anyone here to say that they do not already apply invisible watermarks to everything they display. For certain non photographic content that you give them, their (read Yahoo's) TOS insists that you give them permanent, non revokable copyright over the material. This would be similar to posts made here, if the example was to be made.
Ashley, you seem to think that Acknowledgement of authorship is something that would make everything better. In fact, it is only a polite consideration, and has nothing to do with the law. In fact, the photo that you purloined from Flikr to post in the Sasur@Eighteen forum represents an illegal act (assuming you haven't explicitly obtained copyright from the owner) Further, by stating the ownership of the photo, you are pretty much requiring FreshFoodie to remove it, as you are giving attribution and veracity to your crime. Since FreshFoodie does not require us to indemnify him against lawsuits, it is actually partially HIS RESPONSIBILITY now. Believe it or not (ok.... easy) this post is shorter than my original. The copyright domain is about as murky and complicated and convoluted as any legal domain ever established, and this controversy is likely to just handcuff FreshFoodie, and force him to require users agree to the same boilerplate terms other websites require, rather than allow him to provide an easy quick service.
Ashley, you seem to think that Acknowledgement of authorship is something that would make everything better. In fact, it is only a polite consideration, and has nothing to do with the law. In fact, the photo that you purloined from Flikr to post in the Sasur@Eighteen forum represents an illegal act (assuming you haven't explicitly obtained copyright from the owner) Further, by stating the ownership of the photo, you are pretty much requiring FreshFoodie to remove it, as you are giving attribution and veracity to your crime. Since FreshFoodie does not require us to indemnify him against lawsuits, it is actually partially HIS RESPONSIBILITY now. Believe it or not (ok.... easy) this post is shorter than my original. The copyright domain is about as murky and complicated and convoluted as any legal domain ever established, and this controversy is likely to just handcuff FreshFoodie, and force him to require users agree to the same boilerplate terms other websites require, rather than allow him to provide an easy quick service.
2007 Jul 9
Thanks Ashley for not getting angry (as is the style these days) as I was using your post as a convenient example. You did what everyone else does, on Facebook, YouTube etc. The difference is those sites have sidestepped controversy by letting the users indemnify them, instead of going all draconean on what can/cannot be posted. Life seemed so simple last Friday...
2007 Jul 9
Yes, let me formally apologize to anyone I might have offended by slapping the unjustified "copyright" message on all photos. As I said before, my only intent was to discourage poaching.
Since I have no plans to commercialize this site my interest in legalities is small. I prefer to keep it that way and would like to do the bare minimum required to avoid getting into trouble.
It's still about the food! :-)
Since I have no plans to commercialize this site my interest in legalities is small. I prefer to keep it that way and would like to do the bare minimum required to avoid getting into trouble.
It's still about the food! :-)
2007 Jul 14
At least it made me look it up in Webster's and complement and compliment are used interchangeably... still blame spell check though....
And to be fair or is that fare to FF and Ashley, I only used their pics for effect only and have referenced this site... just don't want to get too legalistic about it...
as for the tempest in a tea pot... apologies all around... it sure up'd my site's read rate.... ;-)
And to be fair or is that fare to FF and Ashley, I only used their pics for effect only and have referenced this site... just don't want to get too legalistic about it...
as for the tempest in a tea pot... apologies all around... it sure up'd my site's read rate.... ;-)
2007 Jul 14
Well they say there's no such thing as bad publicity... but that only goes for money-making endeavours. ;-)
BTW, Complement and Compliment are not used interchangeably -- that was my whole point! From dictionary.reference.com
Complement and compliment, which are pronounced alike and originally shared some meanings, have become separate words with entirely different meanings. As a noun, complement means “something that completes or makes perfect”: The rare old brandy was a perfect complement to the delicious meal. As a verb, complement means “to complete”: A bright scarf complements a dark suit. The noun compliment means “an expression of praise, commendation, or admiration”: The members paid her the compliment of a standing ovation. The verb compliment means “to pay a compliment to”: Everyone complimented him after the recital.
BTW, Complement and Compliment are not used interchangeably -- that was my whole point! From dictionary.reference.com
Complement and compliment, which are pronounced alike and originally shared some meanings, have become separate words with entirely different meanings. As a noun, complement means “something that completes or makes perfect”: The rare old brandy was a perfect complement to the delicious meal. As a verb, complement means “to complete”: A bright scarf complements a dark suit. The noun compliment means “an expression of praise, commendation, or admiration”: The members paid her the compliment of a standing ovation. The verb compliment means “to pay a compliment to”: Everyone complimented him after the recital.
2010 Apr 9
hello zym. this is our first time communicating, nor do i care to continue this with you. maybe i should post links of other OF's personal blogs where some of my pics were lifted as well as some of my purposely playful words verbatim. people should be original and express themselves. i'm not here to discredit any OF's or be anyone's downer. do not ever accuse me in your above written tone again.
again i'm not here to be a downer nor really care what others think or what i do as it really doesn't matter.
as to the watermarks, i recommend stepping back 3 feet from the computer screen and the watermarks magically disappear. LMFAO!!!!!
again i'm not here to be a downer nor really care what others think or what i do as it really doesn't matter.
as to the watermarks, i recommend stepping back 3 feet from the computer screen and the watermarks magically disappear. LMFAO!!!!!
2010 Apr 9
I did not accuse you of anything, I stated facts. When I see a picture here that you yourself posted which says "stolen from [you]" ... well, it certainly was not stolen, was it? So that statement is not true. A "lie" is one word to describe a statement made which is not true. These are all facts, not opinions, nor accusations.
So, I'm not sure I should really apologise for stating facts. But I am truly sorry that someone has been stealing your photos. And even more sorry that their unscrupulous actions are having a negative affect on this site.
Clearly the word "stolen" would be true if these photos showed up on someone else's site other than here. Personally I would not care too much if someone stole my photos from here, but obviously you care a lot about your photography so I can understand that you would therefore want to watermark the pictures as a result of your photos being stolen from here. However, having the word "stolen" on them, on this site, IMO discredits/accuses our host, which is why I wrote what I wrote above.
In any case, it is too bad that the actions of a few people with no scruples have forced you to do something which IMO distracts from this site. I used to enjoy some of your photography - not so much since it has been plastered with the watermarks all over them. Perhaps a better approach would have been for you to bring up the theft in these forums, and ask the culprits to both come forth with an apology, and remove the photos or give you proper credit for them. Rather than discredit our host. Similarly, perhaps a better approach for me would have been to ask you why you were doing it, rather than state things the way I did. But if you must do watermarks, more subtle ones may have been a better approach as well. And ones which did not falsely accuse or discredit our host here on this site.
So, I'm not sure I should really apologise for stating facts. But I am truly sorry that someone has been stealing your photos. And even more sorry that their unscrupulous actions are having a negative affect on this site.
Clearly the word "stolen" would be true if these photos showed up on someone else's site other than here. Personally I would not care too much if someone stole my photos from here, but obviously you care a lot about your photography so I can understand that you would therefore want to watermark the pictures as a result of your photos being stolen from here. However, having the word "stolen" on them, on this site, IMO discredits/accuses our host, which is why I wrote what I wrote above.
In any case, it is too bad that the actions of a few people with no scruples have forced you to do something which IMO distracts from this site. I used to enjoy some of your photography - not so much since it has been plastered with the watermarks all over them. Perhaps a better approach would have been for you to bring up the theft in these forums, and ask the culprits to both come forth with an apology, and remove the photos or give you proper credit for them. Rather than discredit our host. Similarly, perhaps a better approach for me would have been to ask you why you were doing it, rather than state things the way I did. But if you must do watermarks, more subtle ones may have been a better approach as well. And ones which did not falsely accuse or discredit our host here on this site.
2010 Apr 9
p.s. thinking more about it Pej, I think I do owe you an apology directly not exactly for what I said, but rather because your actions caused me to think the worst of you, when in fact I should have been able to clearly see that your actions were only the result of someone else's unscrupulous actions. So it was the worst of them, not you. And brought out the worst in me. My direct and humble apologies to you for not seeing through this, and for thinking the worst of you.
I still think it is a crummy situation for this site, and I hope you will remove the "stolen from", and make your watermarks a bit more subtle from now on. And I hope that our thieves will step up and apologize as well.
I still think it is a crummy situation for this site, and I hope you will remove the "stolen from", and make your watermarks a bit more subtle from now on. And I hope that our thieves will step up and apologize as well.
2010 Apr 9
sorry so busy to not be able to go into thorough detail as now is not the time and the place as the issue on ongoing nor concerning you. but quickly: the first step in any contravention is dealing with the problem directly before escalating. certain OFs' blogs even as we speak my emails and comments simply, jokingly, and politely asking "why" at the end of their blog entries are deleted shortly thereafter. some nerve HAHAHA!!! to steal pics is one thing but to steal both pics AND deliberate playful silliness and call it their own and saying that they were supposedly dining there is the most pathetic thing i've seen and these particular (maybe) OFs know who they are....
hahaha people should stop drinking haterade, get a life off the internet cuz they won't get back the time online that they waste.
i suppose i could escalate and publicly embarrass by posting links, username etc... but i don't care to stoop as low as they are and could result in lower morale/or make readership stale...there's better things i'm looking forward to share MAYBE!
and the main point: i don't ride on anyone's coat-tails or get freebies or get anyone to pay for me. i pay with my hard earned aftertax income to enjoy a lot of cuisine people have to offer, share knowledge, tip servers and interact in the most positive and festive spirit and a fun night out, capture in digital, help spread a positive impression and give them validation where due. with pics, i do get the occasional email from people and especially a couple vendors asking for the raw 14 megapixel images for their marketing and own use and i'm very happy to send them a free CD. but when a few individuals steal all the hard EARNED effort behind the spirit of posting on OFs AS THEIR OWN WORK????? COME ON. at the same time being in business, i'm stubborn and i defend my principles even at costly expense to win. i would love to meet these boys and girls face to face match and see if they have the balls (or chesticles) to stand up and show me some decent rationalization of why they did what they did.
dining right now at cafe toulouse in great company and my typing is back and forth and we're all chuckling at this and waiting for the next few courses. the salmon dish here is wonderful!
...hey life is TOO short, maximize what counts and have fun dude. maybe one day we'll talk more, share a great beer and some personalized dishes for real foodies.
the watermarks stay, thanks for the tip for subtlety.
hahaha people should stop drinking haterade, get a life off the internet cuz they won't get back the time online that they waste.
i suppose i could escalate and publicly embarrass by posting links, username etc... but i don't care to stoop as low as they are and could result in lower morale/or make readership stale...there's better things i'm looking forward to share MAYBE!
and the main point: i don't ride on anyone's coat-tails or get freebies or get anyone to pay for me. i pay with my hard earned aftertax income to enjoy a lot of cuisine people have to offer, share knowledge, tip servers and interact in the most positive and festive spirit and a fun night out, capture in digital, help spread a positive impression and give them validation where due. with pics, i do get the occasional email from people and especially a couple vendors asking for the raw 14 megapixel images for their marketing and own use and i'm very happy to send them a free CD. but when a few individuals steal all the hard EARNED effort behind the spirit of posting on OFs AS THEIR OWN WORK????? COME ON. at the same time being in business, i'm stubborn and i defend my principles even at costly expense to win. i would love to meet these boys and girls face to face match and see if they have the balls (or chesticles) to stand up and show me some decent rationalization of why they did what they did.
dining right now at cafe toulouse in great company and my typing is back and forth and we're all chuckling at this and waiting for the next few courses. the salmon dish here is wonderful!
...hey life is TOO short, maximize what counts and have fun dude. maybe one day we'll talk more, share a great beer and some personalized dishes for real foodies.
the watermarks stay, thanks for the tip for subtlety.
2010 Apr 9
FEEL MY SERPENTINE, the funny thing is that the "stolen from" message makes it look like you stole the pictures! The "stolen from" is often more visible and readable than your name...
You can see from this forum topic that I experimented with adding watermarks to all the images a few years ago. It didn't go over very well at all, and I understand why. Each person owns their own photos here. And besides, watermarks look cheesy. Less is more, and none is best. Really, the low resolution of photos on this site should be enough to prevent serious abuse of them. You said yourself that anyone interested in your photos in a professional sense asks you for the uber high resolution version.
If other users of this site are using your pictures, let me know about it and feel free to slam them in public if they don't respect your copyright. Every page where you see photos here contains the following text: "All copyrights on this page are held by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster." Like the text, the photos are your own and are not free for duplication elsewhere by unauthorized third parties.
You can see from this forum topic that I experimented with adding watermarks to all the images a few years ago. It didn't go over very well at all, and I understand why. Each person owns their own photos here. And besides, watermarks look cheesy. Less is more, and none is best. Really, the low resolution of photos on this site should be enough to prevent serious abuse of them. You said yourself that anyone interested in your photos in a professional sense asks you for the uber high resolution version.
If other users of this site are using your pictures, let me know about it and feel free to slam them in public if they don't respect your copyright. Every page where you see photos here contains the following text: "All copyrights on this page are held by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster." Like the text, the photos are your own and are not free for duplication elsewhere by unauthorized third parties.
2010 Apr 10
Here is the part where I end up pretty much agreeing with you completely Pej.
I just hope you'll find a better compromise with more subtle watermarks so that your defense of your work will not end up punishing the vast majority of innocent users of this site, along with the couple of scumbags who are stealing your work.
I just hope you'll find a better compromise with more subtle watermarks so that your defense of your work will not end up punishing the vast majority of innocent users of this site, along with the couple of scumbags who are stealing your work.
warby
I feel particularly sheepish about slapping OttawaFoodies.com over your profile picture, but rest assured that I'm not claiming ownership of your likeness! Rather, I'm trying to ensure that your photo does not fall into the wrong hands. You can gauge my discomfort by noticing that the watermark on your profile pic is more faint than those on the comment/forum photos. ;-)
If you have thoughts on this please share them. Thanks!