Addicts Watermarking

[Edge]

This does seem like it would help some, but I thought the biggest problem we have here is guys directly showing girls pictures of them, printing photos, or telling them they had seen then - not so much the resposting of photos to other sites (though I know this has happened). And so I don't see how watermarking will address the bigger issue

 

As you say, it has happened and some of us think it is more likely that showing will occur outside PA..

 

Anyways, this doesn't mean I'm against the idea - as long as the watermark doesn't mean that PA claims overall ownership of the image then I don't see why not as it would help deal with some of the issues at least.

 

Actually, they do.

 

27. All content posted on Pattaya Addicts is owned by Pattaya-Addicts.com. We respect your privacy and the Data Protections Act 1998.

[Noud]

I'm all for watermarking. As many other I have been a bit lazy on the tagging of my pictures. And this option while not showing my part in the picture actually gives some grounds when/if it gets circulated to other forums/sites.

 

And as a little side note, if/when it gets spread it could if point back to here. Weather that is good or bad can be debated. But with the amount of good photographers that we have here I would not be surprised if such a thing would get more people to have a look here.

[Shinzon]

I do understand the problem but I think it should be optional. From one point of the it can give the impression that the photo actually belong to PA and not the photographer. And also, many of us do actually create our own watermarks and the there would be 2 on those pix. Some shot may also get the watermarks on top of eachother depending on where its placed.

[Highlander]

I do understand the problem but I think it should be optional. From one point of the it can give the impression that the photo actually belong to PA and not the photographer. And also, many of us do actually create our own watermarks and the there would be 2 on those pix. Some shot may also get the watermarks on top of eachother depending on where its placed.

 

I think a BM suggested that it should be optional, which I agree with for the reasons you mentioned but I do think it would be useful to have the option.

 

Maybe have the watermark say Member@Pattaya-Addicts or something like that.

 

Just a thought

[med5]

I do understand the problem but I think it should be optional. From one point of the it can give the impression that the photo actually belong to PA and not the photographer. And also, many of us do actually create our own watermarks and the there would be 2 on those pix. Some shot may also get the watermarks on top of eachother depending on where its placed.

 

Photos posted here actually belong to PA(and PA can decide to watermark them wheter we like it ot not, even everything we posted in the past) but of course we have the copyrights of our photos and can post them elsewhere. But I understand what do you mean and I also agree with you. I voted YES here(for watermarking of all photos regardless) but if watermarking was OPTIONAL I would probably choose NO for watermarking of my photos.

[Edge]

Photos posted here actually belong to PA(and PA can decide to watermark them wheter we like it ot not, even everything we posted in the past) but of course we have the copyrights of our photos and can post them elsewhere. But I understand what do you mean and I also agree with you. I voted YES here(for watermarking of all photos regardless) but if watermarking was OPTIONAL I would probably choose NO for watermarking of my photos.

 

As I said before, if it's possible for it to be optional and BMs choose to opt out and run with just their own I don't see the problem.

 

If it will be optional, but BMs have voted No assuming that it won't, then that would be a shame IMO, albeit the vote currently says it will be implemented.

Q - If the total Yes Votes is more than the No Votes, but less than the sum of the No + Not Sure + Don't Care Votes, does it happen or not?

[med5]

As I said before, if it's possible for it to be optional and BMs choose to opt out and run with just their own I don't see the problem.

 

If it will be optional, but BMs have voted No assuming that it won't, then that would be a shame IMO, albeit the vote currently says it will be implemented.

Q - If the total Yes Votes is more than the No Votes, but less than the sum of the No + Not Sure + Don't Care Votes, does it happen or not?

 

 

I ment yes, I voted YES for watermatiking photos on PA but if YES is going to be implemented and wateremarking is going to be optionlal I would choose option not to watermark my photos with PA watermark.

[Edge]

I ment yes, I voted YES for watermatiking photos on PA but if YES is going to be implemented and wateremarking is going to be optionlal I would choose option not to watermark my photos with PA watermark.

 

Sorry, yes, I understood you voted in favour.

 

It was actually Shinzon's post which made me think some people might vote against, whereas if they knew it would be optional they would probably vote yes.

I don't know if it can be optional and I'm not asking how anyone voted btw.

 

I voted yes and I hope they do it for the good of PA generally.

If they don't then I'll have to do my own before I post any more.

I hope they listen to the across-the-corner suggestion you made. I've seen it elsewhere and it's usually unobtrusive but makes it harder to crop out.

[furryman]

Default on with an option to turn off sounds great.

[OleKingCole]

It is really distorting the definition of "photographer" to describe me as one LOL

 

However, I set off in a couple of days and fully intend to post some sort of photographic record of my stay in LOS.

 

I know that this would not be a complete and total answer to all the problems discussed elsewhere, but it is surely better than doing nothing and would help combat some of the photo theft. One minor concern. If someone prints a pic of a BG and shows it to her, it will now say the site it came from, so the BG will know where to look for others? (if she didn't know before) but I am sure that has already been considered.

 

Thanks to Edge for advertising this thread in his sig.

[Edge]

It is really distorting the definition of "photographer" to describe me as one LOL

 

However, I set off in a couple of days and fully intend to post some sort of photographic record of my stay in LOS.

 

I know that this would not be a complete and total answer to all the problems discussed elsewhere, but it is surely better than doing nothing and would help combat some of the photo theft. One minor concern. If someone prints a pic of a BG and shows it to her, it will now say the site it came from, so the BG will know where to look for others? (if she didn't know before) but I am sure that has already been considered.

 

Thanks to Edge for advertising this thread in his sig.

 

I lifted the Sig item from a Med5 post. I've amended it to include you and me now.

 

I'll own up I hadn't thought of Pattaya Addicts being printed on a pic shown to a BG.

I suppose the Watermark doesn't have to be PA, but personally, on balance, I would still run with that.

 

I still think it would solve more problems than it would cause.

After the recent case of someone posting Thaihot's pics on another site - and claiming he had the right to do so! - I wonder how much of that is happening.

[LaaMok]

Actually, they do.

 

27. All content posted on Pattaya Addicts is owned by Pattaya-Addicts.com. We respect your privacy and the Data Protections Act 1998.

 

As I have explained a million times, that clause is there so we can protect members photos, we don't actually use the photos or claim we did them. All the photos are backed up encrypted and only I have access to the photos on the server. You know this already, so highlighting it on the thread, is only for one purpose....

 

If you like, I will take away clause 27 for your photos and offer no protection if they get stolen?

[Edge]

............ You know this already, so highlighting it on the thread, is only for one purpose....

..........................

 

Sorry, you lost me there.

 

I wasn't being critical of the Rule, it's pretty standard fare, but it does mean you can Watermark if you choose to doesn't it?

 

I don't know what else you think I meant?

[Highlander]

As I have explained a million times, that clause is there so we can protect members photos, we don't actually use the photos or claim we did them. All the photos are backed up encrypted and only I have access to the photos on the server. You know this already, so highlighting it on the thread, is only for one purpose....

 

If you like, I will take away clause 27 for your photos and offer no protection if they get stolen?

 

I would prefer the watermark as even dating websites use it.

 

I do not read the other forums so I would never know if someone copied my pics

[Edge]

Bump.

 

 

One more day to vote right?

[999Baht]

I voted yes.

It's great to see the owner/s of PA taking extra precautions to protect the people who provide the valuable content.

Great idea....as others have said it would be also good if there was an option to turn off the watermark if someone so wanted it.

I also like the Autofilling of the user name if it is possible so we don't need to do a signature ourselves at all.

Username@PattayaAddicts.

Only thing is if some idiot did show a girl a photo copied from the website they may be able to track down the poster quicker.

[kineow]

BTW, I'm a cartoonist & I've been asked to produce a personalized watermark for a member of another site (His own individual lettering style & cartoon). Maybe if anyone here wants one here they could PM me, that's if it's alright with the 'Admin' of course?

[Edge]

BTW, I'm a cartoonist & I've been asked to produce a personalized watermark for a member of another site (His own individual lettering style & cartoon). Maybe if anyone here wants one here they could PM me, that's if it's alright with the 'Admin' of course?

 

If the PA Watermarking doesn't go ahead I'll be in the queue - if it's free?

[stevxpl]

I’d say its best left to the individual to watermark their photos, if they are worried about someone ripping off their photos then they need to take action.

 

Given some of the photos in the Advanced Members section could be considered pornography, having a Pattaya Addicts watermark on them and then for them to be seen outside of the forum by Thai authorities may bring unwanted attention to the site and possibly end up having it blacked listed and not viewable within Thailand.

[PepeLePew]

BTW, I'm a cartoonist

 

Yeah, I hate cartoons too. Send em back home I say!

[LaaMok]

BTW, I'm a cartoonist & I've been asked to produce a personalized watermark for a member of another site (His own individual lettering style & cartoon). Maybe if anyone here wants one here they could PM me, that's if it's alright with the 'Admin' of course?

 

Yes, please do us one and post it on this thread!

 

Thanks

[Nak Muay]

i disagree with this laamok

 

i dont think addicts should be doing this or assuming ownership of anything in the forum on behalf of anyone.

 

forums are for users to share if they so choose. and its for the user to add their own watermark if they think it will stop people downloading pics from a public place.

 

maybe if you had a opt in or opt out on the profiles so you can choose but i would never opt in.

[LaaMok]

i disagree with this laamok

 

i dont think addicts should be doing this or assuming ownership of anything in the forum on behalf of anyone.

 

forums are for users to share if they so choose. and its for the user to add their own watermark if they think it will stop people downloading pics from a public place.

 

maybe if you had a opt in or opt out on the profiles so you can choose but i would never opt in.

 

When peoples photos have been stolen and used by webmasters... they turn to me for help. I then in turn do everything I can by saying that Pattaya-addicts.com own them, that is alot more powerful than saying Mr Smith from London owns them. We often get them removed faster.

 

I don't have to help people, but I do it for free, to add value to the forum. That clause is only there to protect photos, I do not gain or profit or reuse the photos, its purely geared for protection. If one day you started posting photos and you want protection, you would be singing a different tune.

 

Shall we just take that clause away and offer no protection? If that is what people want, I will start a poll about it. Its alot easier for me and saves time, but I suspect that most members would prefer the current method. Pattaya-addicts.com has alot of influence with webmasters as they are grateful to the traffic we have.

 

I did explain all this earlier, but I don't think the message has got through!

[Troy04]

About two months ago, I was looking for a watermarking modification that will brand all future uploaded pictures with a transparent Pattaya-addicts.com watermark. The key advantage behind this idea, is to offer further protection for members after they have uploaded pictures. If photos are stolen by individuals or webmasters, we know where they have come from and I can assist by contacting webmasters claiming ownership on behalf of the real owner.

 

However, the modification is now available and I had been thinking about the photographers that spend alot of time and high levels of skills, maybe they don't want their photos branded with pattaya addicts, granted that people will know that it wasn't made by the website, but it may hide details in the photo or it may clash with the real owners watermark. I would do it none obtrusive as possible.

 

I am in two minds about what to do, so I will let the members vote for this one and in two weeks time, I will go with the majority vote!

 

Older pictures will be left untouched, only new ones will get a watermark added.

 

 

 

Couldn't you add a check box for photographers when uploading to choose themself if they want a watermark from this page or not?

[kineow]

If the PA Watermarking doesn't go ahead I'll be in the queue - if it's free?

I might consider doing a couple of trial watermarks for free, just to see if I can get the ball rolling, but if it took off as an idea I'd need some sort of bunce out of it... PM me if you want to be the first one in?

Yeah, I hate cartoons too. Send em back home I say!

As it happens, I hate Pepe Le Pew... I wish you'd have made some sence mate?!

 

Yes, please do us one and post it on this thread!Thanks

No probs, it might take a couple of days though?.. I'm actually doing one for someone on another site, he actually came to me with the idea to do it, I'll PM that one to you when it's finished, but obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to post it on a public forum.

Why don't you make a request, sexy girl leaning over a given lettering style or something like that?

 

I figure it's a good alternative option for protecting your pics... Very good for trip reports!