I posted a photo hub and had all positive responses to a photo that I took with my cellphone. The image is clear and has my own 'copyright' mark on the picture.
I am shocked that someone would actually say this image is 'not up to standard' as it has since been featured on other sites and repined many times on pinterest.
Maybe it was an old girlfriend who reviewed it; please tell me your honest opinion as I was surprised by the judgement.
I have since re-submitted it and will be interested to see if it is allowed this time. I would also like to get some feedback as to why it may have been banned in the first place?
The moderation was based on the watermark, and was not a judgement on the quality of the photo.
As suggested in the learning center entry on copyright, there are a couple of ways to protect images on HubPages, you can periodically do reverse image searches using tinyeye, or you can use a digital watermarking service such as digimarc, which adds your ownership information to the file in a an imperceptible way and lasting way.
I'm not aware of any major article oriented sites, such as newspapers or magazines, that watermark their images like this. I believe the primary reason for that is aesthetic.
Digimarcs can be removed from photographs in mere seconds with the simplest of photo editing software. While imperceptible, they are far from lasting.
pauldeeds Thank you so much. That is VERY good advice and makes a lot of sense. I'll take your advice for all my future work. Not that there's a lot of it or that it may have any value.
The one missing point is how would someone who wanted me to do more of the same for them 'find me' from a secret mark. Use to be so simple in the days when an artist was simple allowed to sign their work. Oh well I guess talent is going cheap these days.
If you read Relache's response, you'll note she said that the measures Paul suggests are NOT effective. Don't rely on them.
Bottom line, HubPages is not a place to use photos you don't want to have stolen. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
Why use a reverse search on tinyeye when Google provides it now?
Well,I have submitted 3 hubs,well written I thought.I have moderators turning them down as needing revision.Why don't they just say what is wrong?They were all text,no images,neither too long or too short.I've looked at posts which have been published and compared to mine they are nothing special.
I believe it is a beautiful pic. Just contact team@hubpages and tell them it is yours. I honestly can say I don't really understand the watermark policy. I realize it is for other artists or photographers but in general it isn't for our own. They should be able to straighten it out.
Hi AEven it's always nice to feel your spirit in a room; even if it's a virtual room
I do think the BIG brush is what most sites use to cover their 'rights' but I think they would be hard pressed to change this policy now it's in place.
Maybe a review would help to expand HP participation in the arts category. Pinterest has shown us how popular rights based material can be without any long term problems.
In the past organizations such a HP use to simple ask owners for the right to USE their work. Now it seems the artist has to ask for the right to use their own work; having give up their rights in a contract they only look at when their work 'by chance' goes viral.
Watermarked images are not allowed on HubPages. That is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
The 'watermark' you refer to is actually my name and details. A traditional watermark is all over the image and I could understand that not being allowed. I also wonder how I'm supposed to protect my image from being misused without my copyright stamp. I think your 'watermark' rule was made for third part watermarks maybe?
Isn't this a bit like saying an artist is not allowed to sign their work?
Yes, it's saying exactly that. You are not allowed to put your name on your photos, even in very small print.
Those are HubPages' rules. Unfortunately it means there is no way to protect your images on HP which means photographers aren't able to share their work here. Unfortunately it's the rule.
You could contact the moderators and ask them to review it, maybe grant you an exemption. In that case, linking to this thread may not be such a good idea.
That is a policy issue for others to debate. Have a nice day.
I had a hub pulled for having "watermarked" images.
This was one of them. The fact that is the official logo and header image to the site didn't make a difference to influence their "judgement" on the matter.
Is that watermarked? ... not by any definition I respect.
Likely, they are just making their lives easier by not allowing any brand or url to appear on images as a safeguard - as you would expect the great majority of images that have such things on them with this particular user base would be in fact stolen or used without permission.
They just need to explain their position better, methinks ... perhaps even they prefer to only have Hubpages branding to be evident on the images here.
But ... and its a really big BUT .. No ARTIST or CREATOR of images should ever, ever,ever release their images (for free) online without a proper and attractive watermark. When it is stolen (and it will be stolen) it should at least have that slim chance of bringing some exposure or business your way and help you to get it removed if you don't want it re-used across the net.
With the current rules you simply shouldn't waste any original artworks here.
But - that is a watermark, so I wouldn't expect any good news about using it here as it is currently designed.
Does give me an idea for a suggestion though
I'm sure this is exactly the reason, even though Paul refers to aesthetics. It's much easier to police a blanket rule, than enter into debate with Hubbers over whether individual watermarks do or don't contravene a more complicated one.
It would be SO easy to change the rule to say "no watermarks EXCEPT the photographer's name in small print, no company names allowed".
It is easier for the staff to enforce a absence then work out if the watermark is in some way representative one of the names used by the hubber. Given the volume of work the staff do, I can see why they do it that way.
You know what the worst part is, some worthless little twit would have had to have flagged your hub for that "watermark" in the first place.
Anyways, here is my attempt at a constructive solution to your issue:
I just wouldnt share original images here until some form of protection is allowed or in place.
In hubpages policy Watermarked images are not allowed on HubPages. That is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
I liked that response even better the second time, you said ALMOST exactly the same thing, but somehow it had more flair.
Parroting for effect? or just another example of using that silly "threaded" view in the forum. Try the chronological view if that was an unintentional echo
Well ITcoach that is great to know. Problem is the old customer 'may' be right policy has saved many a company from making arrogant mistakes. People want to protect their work because; well; it's their work. Maybe we should honour the artist with a few rights to protect themselves from opportunists who can't be bothered to explore their own talents.
I didn't come here to be plagiarized, ITcoach. Sniff!
Unlike article scraping - a simple watermark goes a long way in stopping both intentionally malicious and unintentionally ignorant swiping of images.
The difference between a major newspaper is obvious - they are using paid images from staff photographers or stock photo houses.
But at least its clear that it is an aesthetics issue .. which was my guess, since current use of "watermark" in moderation isn't just targeting stolen images (as one would expect)
I did use Tinyeye on your photo, OP - no results.
Also, Images would be easier to hunt downif HP didnt rename the files on upload
The policy is the policy. They have a reasonable basis for it.
I post my own images to Flickr, to my own sites and here as well. Any image you post is up for grabs. It's just a fact. If you really want to control your images don't post them online at all. For every software to add watermarks or some other idea there is another plan for getting rid of the identifying mark. It's a losing battle.
Ironic that this is the issue behind PIPA and SOPA and all the other stuff which has so many people protesting about censorship. It's a two sided thing. So easy to say we should be able to use content from someone else and yet not fair at all to turn around and deny people from using our own content. Tricky issue isn't it?
One idea I just had... Why not mount your photo so it has a white background and then type your information into the white frame around the image? This is not a watermark and it is not on the image itself. How would that work for "protecting" your image and staying within the HubPages rules?
Perhaps the clue to the reason why HP doesn't want watermarking on any photos/images (including the author's own images, produced by them) lies in the following extract from HP's own TOS*:
"You grant HubPages a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, modify, adapt and publish the Author Content on or in connection with the Service."
"Author Content" includes your pictures. Yes, even if you took that photo yourself and put it on your own hub, HP has the right in perpetuity to do what they want with it, without crediting you or giving you royalties/a backlink. Even after you've taken down all your hubs and moved on to pastures new.
NB: In the TOS, Author Content is distinct from Hub Content (the text of your hubs).
"on or in connection with the Service"
Meaning on a hub page or in material that promotes hub pages. Not just selling it to the highest bidder.
Yeah, but they can in theory use your pictures on one of their pages with ads on them, and thereby garner a lot of income. Possibly a lot more income than they would have got by just selling the picture.
That doesn't entirely make sense. You can add a credit to the source for the image under the image, in text on your Hub. I guess it works out for the legal minds in some way.
Interesting comment but megaupload had detailed user terms and conditions of use on their site that was suppose to protect them, but they are still in jail. All and artist wants is a way to be found after the fact. A watermark needn't be a don't use this sticker. It's simply a 'hey it was me who did that' signature. Without this why not go scratch a few signatures off a picasso or 2 and see if we can figure out who painted it.
Why do people do the wrong thing then open forums posts about them and complain? the rules are clear. Forgive me but this is so not easy for staff and moderators. There are over 2 million hubs on HP. Thousands are published each day. Make it easier and don't put any distinctive marks on your photos.
Read the TOS, FAQS an the learning center.
Most people don't read the instructions or the fine print so it actually is good to get it discussed in the forum. Far better for it to be here where HubPages can have input and correct misinformation.
I didn't do anything wrong, it's what I always do. The problem is I have to change the norm to fit an unusual rule that I was unaware of. YES I know I should have taken 2 hours of my busy day to read the small print but opps I didn't. Although I do admire your diligence in reading it all before signing up Cardisa.
However now I know this I simply won't post my photos which is not a problem by the way as there are MANY upstart companies who don't have such a rule and I am after all the customer and have as we say the right to abstain.
I wonder if there are more customers just like me? HUMMMMMMMM
Why would you join a site before reading the full Terms Of Service?
Would you blindly sign up for a mortgage from a bank and not read and understand the full disclosure? Or you just happy to find out about all your service costs, bank charges and fees AFTER you sign?
Now I think there is something about donating a kidney on this sites terms......
Aren't we suppliers, more than customers? We supply HubPages with content. They make advertising revenue, they pay us with a share.
I believe you should be given a consideration otherwise people will be able to download your photos without your watermark on it.
What I would do at the moment if I was a photograph artist is remove the watermark and just credit it back to my main website where I originally posted it.
What gets me about the whole photo rules we have here, is that 'watermarked' images are banned.
To me, you can see through watermarks - they are different from signatures.
This photograph has the author's signature, not a watermark.
I am really glad none of my photos are award winning, because if they were, I wouldn't put them on here.
Here's one of my images. No, I'm not proud.
The point is - is it legal?
It's not important what it is. The thing is, that it is signed. Bit like a watermark really. That was my point. Is signed stuff OK, and if it is, then can you sign a photo?
It's a giraffe by the way. I can't say more for fear of becoming self promotional.
edit: You might say "who in their right mind would sign such a thing?"
That is not the issue here.
Yeah I would flag it, just cos I can
All joking aside, I see nothing wrong with signatures, or the name of the person/website imprinted on an image.
It is only right that they should be recognised for their work.
To me, as I said already, a watermark is see-through, and quite a different beast altogether.
@Mark - I've posted ASCII art which usually has artist initials with it. I've wondered about all of that as I read this post too. I'd probably take all the posts down rather than remove the initials. It's not about ownership of the art. ASCII art gets passed around freely and it has been that way for many years. I can post my own ASCII art and leave off my own initials if that is what I was asked to do. Anyway, I'm interested in what anyone says about your drawings.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The right to say "I did this". We all like attention and it's even better when we have done something to deserve it.
WHY are we not allowed to get the credit for our work.
I mean even the original talent that created the giraffastick deserves the rights to all the credit if it goes viral. So remember guys if the giraffastick goes viral Mark Ewbie was the man who brought it to us first ))
Mark may have the answer, carry a poster with your name and a copyright symbol on it and stick it in the middle of your picture when you take it as part of the image
I'll try to remember. My wife may object to me walking round town with it but we all have to make sacrifices for our art.
That's actually quite an artsy idea. Maybe just Photoshop the sign into the image. I think it could be time for more creative trade/watermarking. But ironically you would be breaking a rule and we wouldn't want that, would we
Guess the fact remains that rules are rules no matter how unreasonable we may think they are.
You have cracked it mark!
You could just have designed a new logo for Sainbury's giraffe bread (formerly tiger bread).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … etter.html
Its a legit question!
I dont expect that Tinyeye is used much outside of the webdev/graphic design community.
I don't know, I have told a lot of people about it and it is very easy to use. It is useful but not comprehensive. I use google image search too.
I think I might be accused of the missing the point, but the aspect of being able to say "this is my work" is provided, and encouraged by HubPages, with the Source, URL, and Caption opportunities. This is where you say the work is yours, (although personally I have no problem with signatures but of course understand the resistance to picture-obscuring watermarks) and using these facilities makes it clear to someone about to take your work that they are stealing. I think there are two different issues. One is the right to say "this is mine", and the other is the question of copyright theft.
No amount of internet policing is going to stop the theft of copyrighted material, any more than the presence of police and court systems is going to completely eradicate shoplifting. But I find it a bit defeatist to say that the best thing is not to use our work. (Although by all means use it elsewhere if you feel there are safer places to use it). Whilst being as cautious as anyone else as to how SOPA etc may or may not (I don't know) have undesirable undertones of heavy-handed control, we do need to make sure that there are repercussions for theft, and not stop the evolution of measures to genuinely prevent the sort of theft that the whole watermark thing is trying to prevent. I'm going to keep publishing, writing, photographing, and making films, and hope that the whole theft piracy thing is not thwarted so that at least there are clear consequences for breaking these reasonable laws, just like there are for shoplifters. Okay, stepping down off my soapbox.
As you mention shoplifting I'll use that as an example.
You go into a shop and put your hand made handbag on the counter and a woman walks up next to you and says to the shop assistant; "I'll take that bag, thank you".
You say "oh I'm sorry but that's my bag".
The shop assistant says; "I don't see your name on it".
You say "yes I know but if you look at the content you'll see that it's mine".
The shop assistant points to a sign on the wall that reads; Any item that is brought into the shop becomes the property of the owner.
You say "well that's just ridiculous".
The shop assistant sells the bag to the woman who empties all your junk onto the counter and she says; "It's your own fault, you should have read the sign on the wall".
The reality is; people are seldom reasonable when a great deal is on the counter and stupid laws protect the rights of opportunists who exploit peoples 'common' rights.
The bottom line is that photo stealing is plagiarism and the owner who has already published the photo can get the plagiarizer kicked out of Google, thrown off o their ISP and can go after them for royalties.
Otherwise, people will steal or "borrow" photos that are put up online. Don't do it if the photo is valuable.
Your photo is wonderful and no one has any business arguing with how you protect it. They should be glad that you even put up a photo.
by sunforged4 years ago
Hubpages wants original works.Hubpages suggests original images to accompany original work.Hubpages doesnt allow Visual Artists to use traditional and accepted best practices to protect their images (unobtrusive...
by Brie Hoffman17 months ago
by Gabriel Wilson2 years ago
Hi to all you hubbers,I am just wondering: am I abandoned and alone in my singular thoughts or perhaps there are others like me! Surely in the year of moving forward and acquiring (hi squidoo's) it is time to preserve...
by Mary Hyatt16 months ago
I thought it was against HP's policy for writers to use photos from those sites where the watermark is on the photo. I see lots of photos I'd like to use, but they would have a watermark.I just read a Hub where...
by Dubuquedogtrainer4 years ago
I received this message on a video I uploaded: "Watermarked or Pixelated Photos or VideosThis Hub has been moderated for low-quality or watermarked images/videos. In order to have it republished, you will need to...
by Tony4 years ago
I have had a hub kicked out for the crime of having watermarked images or videos, as the hub in question only has one image and that has no watermark that only leaves the videos - which all have a "you-tube"...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.