Welcome to Etrain - Official Elliott Yamin Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
The purpose of a watermark is to show OWNERSHIP. It is you legally saying either I made this image, or this image belongs to XXX. It should be on top of the image or artwork not apart from it. Obviously it should not distract from the original work and done correctly it will fade into the background (meaning it wont glare at you, but it should be readable and obvious to all when they look for it)
Now, should some unscrupulous creator (**smiles***) "rip" your creation, or if it doesn't save properly and the footer credits are lost, then all that remains is the original image with the intact watermark, you have not done any damage to the artistís work and worse case scenario you will have prevented another "Group Share, Artist Unknown" from circulating. Not the best scenario we grant you, but at least you will not have done any damage and you can be proud that you have done your best to protect the artistís work.
Conversely, using the same situation, if you had added your own personal watermark to your creation using your artistís image, and the same set of circumstances occurred Ė what would be left? Your artistís work with your name blazoned across it, it doesnít matter why you did what you did, or how good your intent was Ė the bottom line is, to your artist it will appear that you have tried to claim his copyright.
So... if you did not draw the image or take the photo -- please do not put your personal watermark on the art or photo itself, that space must be reserved for the original copyright owner. If you wish to put your mark on the work, put it on the frame, or far away from the original graphic, never leave yourself in a position where it could appear that you are taking credit for work that is not yours..
Exception to the rule
As with most things in life, there is an exception to the rule. If you are working with CILM images, please note that they have their own requirements. While normally it is not ethical to put your name on an artist image, a CILM license does require that the artist copyright, license holder name and # be on the actual image.
Watermark Tutorial and Homework
Finally, lets look at the creation of the watermark itself. The tutorial explains how to use your layers menu to lower the opacity of the image. The opacity means how "see through" the image is. There is a fine line between making your mark a huge part of the artwork or not being able to read your mark at all. Your personal watermark is what identifies you, it is your logo. It should be very important to you and once you create your watermark, you need to tube it and when you use it... it needs to go on it's own layer so that you can lower the opacity to fit the art or photo.
Member No.: 1,993
Joined: 10-June 06
Brat - Thanks for this informaiton. Do you have knowledge of the legalities when it comes to simply posting pictures or articles - for instance, does just giving credit to the author suffice to avoid legal implications?
ETA: thanks for the PM explaining this and a few other issues ... "Usually, if you bring something onto another site, if you cite where it is from, the pictures, and cite the author for the article, then you are pretty safe."
This post has been edited by MOMster on Sep 14 2008, 12:06 AM
Member No.: 2,025
Joined: 11-June 06
That's not exactly what I said. ( I didn't even want this post moved to here. SK888888 did it.) My concern is that this is infringement on someone else's photos, words and print. the magazine copyrights this for their use. If the photographer were an ETrainer and the writer were the same, then you would need to get permission from the magazine to post. They pay for this exclusivity. When a watermark is used, it means the contents are the ownership of that watermark. I don't think that the Japanese magazine is owned by ETrain. If quoting me, please be specific. I can get quite perturbed when it comes to the law. brat
Member No.: 2,182
Joined: 19-June 06
Finally! A sensible answer to a legitimate question asked by Lizzy earlier. Instead of answering with 'why do you want to know' and 'you're just trying to cause trouble'. Don't you not think this is a question that needed to be addressed?
Member No.: 1,528
Joined: 30-May 06
Thank you for the information. It provides another aspect of coypright law that we should all be aware of.
In regards to the specific article mentioned, it is a violation of copyright law to watermark the images. Actually, it is a violation of copyright law to provide the article and the pictures in the first place.
I first posted (in some now unknown thread to me) over a year ago that the copyright laws are violated consistently on Etrain. In fact, reproducing the article in the topic starter post is a violation of copyright law. It is not enough that the source be cited. If you don't own it, it is a violation of copyright law to reproduce it without permission.
In regard to this statement:
Let's not get Elliott involved with a lawsuit.
I don't know about this, so I'll ask Brat242: Wouldn't someone have to prove that Elliott is legally responsible for the contents of this website? I was under the assumption, based on my experience with my own website, that the registered owner of a website is responsible for its contents.
I have been bothered by copyright issues for a long time and I admit that I have violated them by providing audio and video captures of radio and TV programs. I haven't done that for months now, and I hope I'm never tempted to do it again in my desire to share things related to Elliott.
If the issue is violation of copyright, then it should be addressed uniformly to all aspects of copyright violation on the Etrain.
Member No.: 1,528
Joined: 30-May 06
QUOTE (Sk8888 @ Sep 13 2008, 10:37 PM)
Here is a post by Etrain member Brat242:
† I do believe that this settles it. I love Elliott, but the watermarks are just too much. I have been involved with pre-law, and the magazines pics, while Siba was great to bring them here, were not taken by any member of the Train, to my knowledge. Let's not get Elliott involved with a lawsuit. Just because they are from another country, and the photographers might not find out about the Train watermark, this clearly is a breach. Too much conversation to dance around this issue. Plagiarism is a serious issue. It is a sue worthy issue. Does the Train, which is supposed to represent Elliott, want to get him involved with a suit? But, I don't think that it was a Train photog that did these pics and wrote the article. The watermark means that you are claiming that the work is YOUR property. I do not think this is so. Also, why PM this type of stuff? This is very important and should be handled correctly within the law. brat
This post has been edited by brat242 on Sep 13 2008, 07:32 PM
I am troubled by this paragraph and I wish I knew more about copyright litigation. I just don't see how this involves Elliott in any way. I can see how it involves Siba and I can see how it involves the owners of this website, but I can't see how it involves Elliott.
I also don't know if this is a sue-worthy issue, but I doubt that it is. From what I have been reading, the most common practice is send a letter to the offender asking that the copyrighted material be removed. In this case, it would be not only the watermark but the entire article.
Litigation is expensive and is usually undertaken to recover lost profits. Now if these pictures were taken, even without the watermark, and sold to a magazine with a several million subscribers, I could more easily understand that it is sue-worthy.
This post has been edited by onlyforelliott on Sep 14 2008, 03:21 PM
Member No.: 1,528
Joined: 30-May 06
QUOTE (rooney @ Sep 14 2008, 04:59 AM)
Finally! A sensible answer to a legitimate question asked by Lizzy earlier.† Instead of answering with 'why do you want to know'† and 'you're just trying to cause trouble'. Don't† you not think this is a question that needed to be addressed?
Thank you Brat for posting.
I spent many hours in reading because I have this thing about needing to understand something. Copyright sure is complicated. Here is a summary of what I found and what I concluded in relation to the topic starter post.
Siba did not reproduce the photographer's photographs. She presented a scan of some magazine articles. Such scans are common on websites because, for the most part, just like with radio interviews, the copyright owner is not concerned and, in some cases, might even welcome the publicity. I think it is highly doubtful that the magazines who published these articles have suffered any loss of revenue because such scans were presented. It is more likely that would sell a few more magazines because of them. In essence, she made images of some magazine articles and gave credit to the magazines.
On the other hand, Brat242 reproduced a significant portion of an article without properly citing the source. I found the original article and here is the reference that should have been included in Brat242's post:
After reading the entire article, I have changed the position I stated above. The section of this article on putting the copyright symbol as part of watermark was omitted in the Brat242's post. In the numerous articles that I have read today, using a watermark as a copyright notice always included using either the copyright symbol or a registered trademark.
Although the copyright protection is the main field of using digital watermarks, they can also be used for such purposes as advertising (adding companyís name and logo as a watermark for promotion rather than for protection) or even adding memo titles to digital photos. Itís obvious that only visible watermarks can satisfy these requirements.
Rather than confuse things by editing my posts above, I am going on record as stating my final position is that what Siba did was acceptable and does not jeopardize Elliott in any way.
Edited to add: I'd like to add a further clarification as there are two different issues that are intertwined here. In the most general terms, if you post anything on the Internet which you did not create and for which you do not have permission, it is a copyright validation. I have stated from the beginning that scanning a magazine article is a copyright violation. Posting the picture of Elliott in the Home for the Holidays thread withhout permission is a copyright violation. Even posting a video of Elliott in concert without permission is a copyright violation because although you created the video, Elliott and his band created the performance and therefore own it. In my discussion above, I stated that scans are common and in most cases the copyright owner is not concerned. That is conjecture on my part, because you couldn't know for certain unless you asked.
The main focus of my post was to substantiate that watermarking an image does not automatically imply that you are claiming copyright ownership of the contents of that image.
This post has been edited by onlyforelliott on Sep 15 2008, 11:55 AM
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)