Category talk:Images with watermarks

Categories

I think we should have two categories. One where you can easily remove the watermarks (when it is on single colored backgrounds or diagrams) or ones where removal necessitates a new version of the image. This would allow users with sufficient skill to easily remove the markings from the ones they can. gren 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Superfluent

I am slowly getting annoyed by certain people adding this template to my pictures. Let me explain why:

• for years I have been making maps using a considerable amount of time for free, protecting my work and the cc-by-sa by adding a line stating me as author and the right copyright. Thus there are a lot of images to be changed - should I not use this time to do something useful?
• Stating me as authur is not done for vanity only, but I stand with my name for the quality of my maps - I do not have to hide.
• If I give something for free, is it not my right to at least place my name on my work? In any book I know, the name of the author of a map is shown even if these people have been paid for their work.
• And, last but not least - it is not vanity, I am proud of my productions as any artist!
• I spent approximately one hour trying to make this exif-thing work - with no result. This seems to be a geek thing, not useful for ordinary people - maybe I am too stupid to use it, who knows.

So please stop this bureaucratic nonsense. I do not see, how this brings us any further.sidonius (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your problem. You can place your watermarks (Name and copyright mark) on your images wherever and however you want. If you put your images under a license which allows everyone to change and rework your images, everybody is permitted to remove this visible watermarks if he respects your authorship i.e. by putting your name as originator in the context of the image or something like that (at Commons we have the image description pages for that, I think). So the watermarks are unsuitable to preserve your (copy)rights, but they annoy many people who want to use your images.

Summary: You are still allowed to put visible watermarks on your images, but someone else may remove them. Why do you complain? It is not your job to rework all your images, to remove the visible watermarks. If you need tools for generating/modifying the EXIF data of your images, we may help you if you tell us what computer system you are using and where are your problems exactly with your existing programs. :-) --RokerHRO (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we won't agree about authorship in general. I was annoyed initially by people claiming I put a watermark in my pictures, because I have a different understanding about what a watermark is - my little Name, year, wikipedia in the bottom right angle did not seem like a traditional watermark covering the entire picture. I really do not see, how my little author tag could annoy people that want to use my picture unless they want to claim it is their own or they do not want to state that they got it from wikipedia. What EXIF-programm would you suggest for windows vista 64? sidonius (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see why or where we disagree about authorship in general. Whether any visible lettering in an image is considered as a watermark can be debated, of course. If you agree with me that a "watermark covering the entire picture" is annoying, so I ask you: At which size such a watermark begins to annoy someone? This might vary a lot. So most people here at Wikimedia Commons tends to the opinion that every visible lettering/marking in images might be (more or less) annoying.

The second thing is: such visible letterings are completely useless at Wikimedia Commons. All images here must be published under a license which always also allows the changing or removal of such letterings. This removal does not change your (original) authorship nor your copyrights. If the user abides to your image license he will respect and denote your authorship and your license in an appropriate way. If a malicious user wants to "steal" your image and claims its own authorship unlawfully then a lettering/watermarking does not stop him in any way.

Summary: Watermarks or any letterings A) might be annoy someone, more or less, and B) are both unnecessary and unsuitable to protect or perpetuate your authorship or any other rights you might have on the images. So why do you spoil your images with such things?

I don't know any Windows GUI tools. I expect any commercial photo editor (Photoshop? Corel? Whatever) should be able to view and change EXIF metadata. I only use Linux and a command-line tool called exiftool which allows very convenient (for a console user) editing of EXIF tags in all/many files in the whole directory and such things. I think it could be available for MS Windows, too, if you are willing to use a command-line tool. If not, just ask Google. A query like "EXIF editor" spits out a lot of freeware for MS Windows. Don't know which one is usable or fulfills your needs.

--RokerHRO (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)