APOD: Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka (2013 Dec 12)

[Galaxian]

Don't people know they can watermark images invisibly?

I didn't, or at least I don't think I use software which can and I might not know how to find it if it was there. Regardless, owners may do as they please, for whatever reasons. The fact that this APOD was selected might indicate that it is not a big issue to the APOD judges.

I thought most image manipulation software allowed one to add comments in the metadata, the file descriptor region? The simple, cheap ones I use do.

Perhaps you would like to propose the details of a standard method for owners to assert their moral rights? Personally, the variation doesn't bother me at all.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that. I don't know what software real professionals use so I don't know how it works and what it can't do. In addition to which, unless its something I've been using for years the other guys will know more about their software than I will. Even if it is something I've used for years they probably use it more.

[Galaxian]

Also, silly graphics tricks. Not an "invisible" watermark but a very sneaky one just for fun. See if you can find it. Note: It might be completely obvious if you are red-green colorblind but I'm not sure about that.

Thanks for the hint. I was looking for something tiny and obscure. Your watermark is hardly either of those. It's cute, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography and https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=watermark+images might be useful.

[Galaxian]

What a gloriously beautiful image. If I had created something like this, I would certainly sign my name to it. By the way, who does that Van Gogh guy think he is, scrawling his name on an otherwise perfectly beautiful picture of daisies?

Okay. Point taken. I won't do it again. However, to be fair to modern creators, van Gogh didn't have electronic means of hiding copyright notices in his paintings. He could have used lemon juice or something equally invisible but those decay and become coloured. Anyway, van Gogh wasn't expecting us to have his paintings on our monitors, and he was hoping to get paid for every copy used. It is our very good fortune that APoD and the creators who so generously share their work are kinder to us.

[Galaxian]

It would have been a beautiful image had not the creator decided to mar it with his ownership details. True, cutting off a chunk isn't too onerous but that rather spoils the owners original work and I'm not sure that's strictly legal. Don't people know they can watermark images invisibly?

Watermarks are used to avoid copyright infringements. In this case, the author simply wants to "sign" the image - which is what you don't like - and he chose one of the areas where it could less interfere with the view of the photograph as a whole (usually that's one of the lower corners). I know because I'm the author No need to start a debate, we all have our preferences.

Thank you for explaining and thank you for sharing.
It is a gorgeous image of a lovely part of our Galaxy but you are right, I'm petty and pouty and I want all my freebies to be perfect and I don't like signatures on images, or paintings. It's like the DOGs, digital online graphics, TV companies use as IDents and teasers. Five thousand SFX guys spend ten years getting something just right, two actors work their butts off to portray deep emotion in a blank room in front of a green screen and the dumb TV guys cut their heads off, run a crawler over the effects and generally ruin it. A small signature isn't in that class but it's still obtrusive to nitpickerry perfectionists.
Like me.
I don't feel right cutting off a signature, that feels vaguely like vandalism of a mild sort but if I could magically extinguish the TV DOGs I would.
And you're right, I shouldn't have mentioned it.
Bye.

[owlice]

Galaxian,

It is extremely easy to see that APOD images are widely shared and often, used illegally. I have a Facebook friend who reposts images that market Greece as a travel destination; because I'm familiar with APOD, I have recognized some of the images as the work of certain photographers. I alert them to the use of their images when I see them, because these images are not 1.) identified as copyrighted images; 2.) credited to the copyright holders. Some think they can grab whatever appears anywhere and use it for whatever purpose they want without attributing anything to anyone and without paying for the use. This is wrong.

As pointed out, APOD suggests imagers sign their work: "We do recommend that you include a small copyright notice in a corner of your submitted images." This is to protect the photographers' interests. Rather than be bothered by the desire of a photographer to protect his work, I suggest you direct your annoyance where it belongs: to those who abuse the rights of others.

[Nitpicker]

Don't people know they can watermark images invisibly?

I didn't, or at least I don't think I use software which can and I might not know how to find it if it was there. Regardless, owners may do as they please, for whatever reasons. The fact that this APOD was selected might indicate that it is not a big issue to the APOD judges.

I thought most image manipulation software allowed one to add comments in the metadata, the file descriptor region? The simple, cheap ones I use do.

Ah, I didn't think you were talking about the metadata or Exif format embedded in the image file (which even Windows Explorer can view or delete). I thought you were talking about a trick [or hack if you are being impolite, like I was before] with the image pixels. Besides, I'm sure my image editing software is simpler and cheaper than yours.

Edit reason: incorrect quote tags

[geckzilla]

I don't necessarily think a "hack" is a bad thing. They certainly make my life easier.

[Nitpicker]

I don't necessarily think a "hack" is a bad thing. They certainly make my life easier.

Sometimes I also find it better to "hack" at my work -- normally for commercial reasons. But "hack" is certainly a loaded word.

[Galaxian]

Galaxian,

It is extremely easy to see that APOD images are widely shared and often, used illegally. I have a Facebook friend who reposts images that market Greece as a travel destination; because I'm familiar with APOD, I have recognized some of the images as the work of certain photographers. I alert them to the use of their images when I see them, because these images are not 1.) identified as copyrighted images; 2.) credited to the copyright holders. Some think they can grab whatever appears anywhere and use it for whatever purpose they want without attributing anything to anyone and without paying for the use. This is wrong.

I agree. Totally. I create. I like getting paid for it. I would never use your work as my own.

As pointed out, APOD suggests imagers sign their work: "We do recommend that you include a small copyright notice in a corner of your submitted images." This is to protect the photographers' interests. Rather than be bothered by the desire of a photographer to protect his work, I suggest you direct your annoyance where it belongs: to those who abuse the rights of others.

Last comment, I wasn't bothered by the photographer's desire to protect his work. I *encouraged* that. I was bothered by what I saw as a coffee-cup ring on the image. Had I the tools and skill to produce an image like that I would never have ...
Ah, I'm sorry I started this.
I'm sorry I started anything.
Anyone know how to delete an Asterisk profile?

[geckzilla]

No worries, I get what you mean. Some watermarks can be pretty obtrusive. The only way to delete your account is to have an admin do that and no one has convinced one of those lazy bums to do anything since the board was created.

[Ann]

Galaxian, I think everybody gets what you mean by now, and no one should be offended.

Personally, I am always very grateful when an astrophotographer signs his (or her) work. I like to search for pictures to post here, and sometimes it is extremely hard or impossible to find out who is the author of a great picture. Occasionally I spend quite some time trying to find the name of the rightful owner. But if the name is there on the picture itself, then I don't have to bother!

Ann