<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>That Chris Brown's Blog &#187; copyright</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thatchrisbrown.com/tag/copyright/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thatchrisbrown.com</link>
	<description>Another Chris Brown &#38; another blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:05:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Protecting photography displayed online through branding</title>
		<link>http://www.thatchrisbrown.com/2009/protecting-photography-displayed-online-through-branding/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thatchrisbrown.com/2009/protecting-photography-displayed-online-through-branding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thatchrisbrown.com/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some thoughts prompted by an article in Layers Magazine, on preventing copyright theft of images displayed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-right: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatchrisbrown.com%2F2009%2Fprotecting-photography-displayed-online-through-branding%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatchrisbrown.com%2F2009%2Fprotecting-photography-displayed-online-through-branding%2F&amp;source=thatchrisbrown&amp;style=normal" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>A quick post prompted by an article in Layers magazine <a title="Protecting What’s Yours" href="http://www.layersmagazine.com/protecting-whats-yours.html" target="_blank">online</a>.  While I agree with the spirit of the article, and applaud the use of a high-profile site to remind artists and photographers to take steps to protect their work from copyright theft, I think some of the suggested protections are counterproductive, as even the article sort of admits in places.</p>
<p>Take  image sizes displayed online as an example.  Average screen sizes and display resolutions are getting bigger, and an 800 x 600 picture is no longer going to fill many viewer&#8217;s displays.  While sites like <a title="Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/" target="_blank">Flickr</a> will upscale a small image in the slideshow function, that upsizing is going to introduce some loss of quality.  Do you want to show your work off in a way that will likely decrease the perceived quality?</p>
<p>Speaking of which, over-compressing the JPEG file as an anti-theft mesaure?  Call me an old cynic if you like, but have you been to retailers like Next in the UK and had a close look at the images they sell ready-framed up as ready-to-hang artwork?  OK, they may only be £30 or so, but all the same, there&#8217;s some pretty nasty JPEG and/or upscaling artifacting going on in all of the ones I&#8217;ve seen.</p>
<p>So, keeping a small image size and adding JPEG compression artifacts isn&#8217;t going to put people off, not if they&#8217;ye already paying £30 for a badly-printed, poor-quality image in a wooden frame made in some cheap third-world factory.  Sad though it is, is you want some protection from abuse of your images that you put online, I think branding is the only way to add a modicum of security.</p>
<p>Years ago, I started branding with a small, discreet footer added to my pictures.  This started off as plain white text, in a rather nasty font, and later got slightly neater with a sans-serif font in white on a trasparent black bar, so it blended in the bottom of the image slightly more.  However, seeing examples where footers had just been cropped out by the abusers, I decided it was time to do something more difficult to erase.</p>
<p>I now have a Photoshop action that adds a white text footer on a 50% opaque black bar, and another that adds large 10% opaque white text right across the middle of an image.  It&#8217;s not often that an image is useful without the middle, so it&#8217;s pretty crop-proof.  This lets me still save at up to 1024 pixels, and fairly good quality levels; I tend to use Photoshop quality level 10 or the Lightroom equivalent for the web.  I&#8217;ve automated these using a droplet so I can invoke as a post-export action from Lightroom, which hopefully I&#8217;ll expand on a bit a future post. Ideally I&#8217;d like to set it up using ActionScript, so it can look at the metadata and stamp the right year on the file itself, and accomodate wildly differing image sizes automatically; another future post topic, should I ever get that working!</p>
<p>See some examples of this branding approach on my Flickr <a title="My Flickr photostream" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/seebrown99/" target="_blank">Photostream</a>.  I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s terribly intrusive, nor do I think it spoils the picture too badly.  I&#8217;d be interested to see any comments from other photographers and digital artists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thatchrisbrown.com/2009/protecting-photography-displayed-online-through-branding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
