4 ms·
Man, I'm torn here. Making orphaned works public-domain is really a positive move, but the law doesn't appear to be using a great definition of orphaned if thi
by Vivtek 13y ago
Man, I'm torn here. Making orphaned works public-domain is really a positive move, but the law doesn't appear to be using a great definition of orphaned if this article can be believed.
It does beg a question, though: I don't live by photography (otherwise my children would be starving) but if I were, wouldn't I put my name and contact into any metadata?
- buro9 13y ago> wouldn't I put my name and contact into any metadata And then things like CloudFlare+ might optimise the image discarding meta-data during compression of the image, and a person solely relying on the image will not be able to find the creator. The only option will be to visibly watermark the image with the creator name. + I'm not sure if CloudFlare does do this, but something may optimise the image and discard the EXIF or other meta-data.
- Already__Taken 13y agoWell imgur does that and if you have fans copying images to imgur to share on forums as to not ddos the author you might see this problem.
- polshaw 13y agoWatermarks are often removed, via cropping or photoshop. The only solid option of protecting your work is to add it to a copyright registry, which isn't likely to be free.