thats the sort of thing rob im looking for , do you just use photoshop?, i did as you have and just had it on the edges but nothing in the middle, but obvious he cropped them to remove it.
Yeah, it's just Photoshop. I've seen various ways suggested for doing it (custom/auto shapes etc.), I do it with 'Actions' now.
For the majority of my work (the cricket stuff), I'm outputting files in one of about three or four aspect ratios, each sized to something similar, so I've recorded an action for each.
For example, I've got one which spits out 800 x 533, another which spits out 533 x 533, etc.
The method to set it up (in case it's useful).. Open an image, crop (if required) to whatever aspect ratio you want, then start recording an action... Firstly, resize the image as required (eg. 800 px wide), then create your text layers for 'edge' copyright/URL details etc, then create another and just paste the © into it (it's no more difficult than using a shape, but of course you can change the font), size and position it all to suit, set layer opacities, then do a 'Save As', before stopping the action-record. As a matter of course, I then uncheck the 'Save As' bit on the script, so nothing ever gets saved without my specifically requesting it, but as the script has a 'Save As' in it, it's possible to use for batch-processing too (because you can tick 'override Save As command' or whatever it is (in the batch options)) and set to run through a load of files and over-write or save according to specification for the run.
i would have been annoyed with just one photo but he pretty well copied my whole ****** site .....********
im not to worried about fact it not as nice as clean image as clients would see originals when i visited them
and its the photos i need to protect as im also doing a part time photography course and will be putting together another site for that work so wnat to try protect as much as possible there
People rinsing photography really winds me up. I guess if you're in a situation where you can show quality hard copy to clients, having to watermark somewhat more heavily is at least a bit more bearable, but it's still a shame it has to happen at all. I think Google Images and its peers have something to answer in desensitising people that they're actually ripping someone else off. I'm often shown new websites that people have done, albeit perhaps non-commercially, but the images are just grabbed from wherever. When its cricket sites, the copyright for these is often owned by Getty or PA etc., there'd be an almighty shockwave if agencies like that went after even the little guys who are using their stuff without authorisation.
I'm quite prepared to be reasonable with people - if a big commercial entity wants one of my photos, I'd hope to license it for the going-rate, or something approaching it; on the other hand if a clearly penniless not-for-profit/charity came along, I'd be prepared to make concessions, but all too often these days, if people don't need to ask permission, they won't - hence my heavier watermarking.
There was a case recently where a national newspaper (I'd rather not give such a rag publicity by naming them) approached a blogger about use of a photo, a (not unreasonable) price was named, and the paper said it was too steep; then promptly went ahead and took the image anyway. I think that's fairly indicative of how much a problem this issue actually is.
Anyway... Rant over. All the best with your course/enterprise!
Rob.
