Models, Photographers and Copyrights… San Antonio, I want YOUR OPINION…;)

[bcdstudios]

Happy New Year to all in San Antonio! As requested politely by SL another insanely huge offensive watermark - to enjoy over the weekend:



BTW - What do other (unbiased) forum members see in the photo? My studio watermark OR a beautiful woman? (Really, I'd love your feedback!)

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by bcdstudios

Happy New Year to all in San Antonio! As requested politely by SL another insanely huge offensive watermark - to enjoy over the weekend:



BTW - What do other (unbiased) forum members see in the photo? My studio watermark OR a beautiful woman? (Really, I'd love your feedback!)

Though I'm a fierce proponent of copyright protection, I must say that I'd prefer your name vertically on the right lower edge. It actually is distracting there at the top.

In a way, it makes it look like one of your stock photos that someone lifted, rather than one a lady would commission and have in her portfolio. It reminds me of the proof stamp on my wedding photos.

That said, it's still illegal to take it and crop the watermark off unless you agree to it.

The photo is breathtaking! You do fantastic wrk!

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by bcdstudios

Happy New Year to all in San Antonio! As requested politely by SL another insanely huge offensive watermark - to enjoy over the weekend:



BTW - What do other (unbiased) forum members see in the photo? My studio watermark OR a beautiful woman? (Really, I'd love your feedback!)

Looks like you made it shorter. So it's "less" offensive but still offensive. You need to stop trying to make yourself look good asking about the ladies. The ladies without question are hot. Your photography doesn't make them HOT! I could take my iphone and take pictures of these ladies at the grocery store and EVERYONE would think the ladies are HOT.

I'll post "FIVE" pictures and let's compare them to yours. Now ask the members if your BANNER WATER MARK is offensive when comparing to these.







[Staff edit. M]

[Riff Raff]

I think #'s 3 and 5 are as obnoxious as BCD. The thing I find most obtrusive about his watermark is the size, the boldness, and the tasteless box font. It's like spraying graffiti on a beautiful Victorian home, it's way out of place. He should try a smaller, more delicate font, and make it more transparent. After all we want to look at a photograph, not a watermark. Make your reputation on the work, not bludgeoning everyone with a lame logo!

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Riff Raff

I think #'s 3 and 5 are as obnoxious as BCD. The thing I find most obtrusive about his watermark is the size, the boldness, and the tasteless box font. It's like spraying graffiti on a beautiful Victorian home, it's way out of place. He should try a smaller, more delicate font, and make it more transparent. After all we want to look at a photograph, not a watermark. Make your reputation on the work, not bludgeoning everyone with a lame logo!

EXACTLY.... but he ignores these kind of responses.

[Still Looking]

Let's see BCD (BITCHY CAMERA DUDE)

I wonder which one is offensive?

#1



#2





#1



#2

[Still Looking]

WOW! The Banner water mark is hardly noticeable...

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Still Looking

WOW! The Banner water mark is hardly noticeable...

What watermark?

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Whispers

What watermark?

Sorry....my bad. I meant gigantic banner ad.

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Still Looking

Sorry....my bad. I meant gigantic banner ad.

Oh that!

[Still Looking]

BITCH CAMERA DUDE must be taking a long weekend!

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by thisguy23

Why would any girl making a living in a cash and carry business have a pic taken of herself with a banner splashed across top of it screaming this is where Mr. LE can find a contract that I signed with my RW information on it?

Originally Posted by Still Looking

Interesting perspective. WOW!

Then we're back to the default copyright law of the photog owning the images and doing whatever. And Mynx presents a classic well publicized situation that occurred.

So would a gal be better off paying a fee that includes she owns the images, and that the studio watermark is excluded for that security issue to be avoided? Is this a function of carefully shopping? Are there fee differences involved? Inquiring minds would like to know.

As much as I avoid SL's posts due to TLDR, he does have a good one with this.

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Then we're back to the default copyright law of the photog owning the images and doing whatever. And Mynx presents a classic well publicized situation that occurred.

So would a gal be better off paying a fee that includes she owns the images, and that the studio watermark is excluded for that security issue to be avoided? Is this a function of carefully shopping? Are there fee differences involved? Inquiring minds would like to know.

As much as I avoid SL's posts due to TLDR, he does have a good one with this.

Continued in National:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=949891

[Slave Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Still Looking

Continued in National:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=949891

Sir SL..

What? Are you saying you are now BORED with my little thread? Lol

Damn... first, it's other women and now I'm BORING? You see what happens when I don't wear my BLACK PLEATHER OUTFIT to one little HOLIDAY PARTY?

Your fashion conscious slave,

Guinevere

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

Sir SL..

What? Are you saying you are now BORED with my little thread? Lol

Damn... first, it's other women and now I'm BORING? You see what happens when I don't wear my BLACK PLEATHER OUTFIT to one little HOLIDAY PARTY?

Your fashion conscious slave,

Guinevere

All eyes were on you Slave. And I was surprised, the line to be able to talk to you wasn't as long as I expected.