Comments on: Unauthorized Use (Theft) of Photograph Admitted

By: a dragon's opinion

a dragon's opinion — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:30:15 +0000

hi mm (from caledonia)–have read all past blogs, am now at this page: on the watermark feature–to maintain aesthetics, the wm doesn’t have to be big. I constantly remind my daughter, who creates a lot of original artwork (manual & digital), to “sign” i.e, watermark even, all her works discreetly even, so that if it’s stolen, she knows her signature. i have started with my photos, which annoys hubby, but as i explain, if my photos ever become public, i can pursue and prove that they were mine. why not use your basket as your watermark–use 4 or 6 pts…

By: Marketman

Marketman — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:35:45 +0000

echo, watermarks ruin a photo and any person trying to steal them can remove them relatively easily. If you followed this issue at the time it happened, you would have known it was settled to my satisfaction, including a printed apology. Folks just have to be vigilant. And people need to understand the concept of intellectual property. Since this episode and similar situations, the Inquirer has been more careful about sourcing their photos, which often are taken from the net in their lifestyle sections…

By: echo

echo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:25:14 +0000

Try to put watermarks in your photos… to avoid duplication or illegal publicity. Picture is an art. There’s always a word – “copyright” eh? It’s like cheating answer from you classmate in an examination. Its really bad… huhuhuhu… for me, inquirer covers up the whole philippines, so it is infact, something big to neglect. I will be firm with my decision, if I were you… Inquirer will surely laugh at you… “papayag ka rin pala eh, papahirapan mo pa sarili mo”…

By: Marketman

Marketman — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:43:07 +0000

adelle, I completely understand where you are coming from, but I do still believe an important principle was violated. There are methods for trying to protect photos but sophisticated techies can scan just about anything… and use it. Just like there are public libraries in great cities around the world where the public has access to millions of books…it still isn’t right to photocopy a page of a book and quote it word for word without attribution in a school paper or business document…

By: adelle

adelle — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:41:01 +0000

I hope this won’t be a war between Inquirer vs MM. To the paper’s credit, i first came to know of this site when I read Inquirer a few months ago. It may not be a perfect paper but still, it features MM and this blog. Perhaps Mr Ceniza doesn’t own a camera or pictures that he seems worth publishing so he panicked and searched the internet for yema and just as i searched it now, the photo of that famous yema is no 1 in the list. Am telling you MM, there will be more photos that will be copied. You may use a feature where right-clicking is not allowed in your blog. I don’t know how but I know there is.

By: Marketman

Marketman — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:46:44 +0000

Okay, that really puts an end to a sordid episode. There is much to be said but a public apology of sorts was given in the paper. That closes the book for Marketman. Cleng, I do certainly understand your position in comments left in two posts of mine but I still make it clear that a principle was violated and someone had to say something. If you write a blog and put in as much effort as I do daily, you would feel a bit more attachment to your content, whether or not the photograph is spectacular by your standards… Mr. Ceniza did wrong, he finally apologized for it, I am not convinced he totally accepts responsiblity, but that is my opinion, and perhpas that of 98% of my readers, judging from the reaction in private emails (far more than publicly posted comments) and comments here and in the previous post. Whereas folks who do not like my blog are free and should NOT ever come back, I do not have the leisure of letting the Inquirer know who should be allowed to view my photograph…

By: jillsabs

jillsabs — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:50:43 +0000

i’m a law student so this case really interests me. under the IPL, a criminal action would seem to be the least effective because an injured person will have to prove intent on the part of the offender. in this case, with a cash prize of 2k, it seems quite difficult to say that mr ceniza took the picture for his monetary benefit.

at most, it seems as if a civil action would most prosper because it will be based on moral damages, wherein market man doesn’t need to prove actual damages to say that he was injured.

good luck with the fight :)

By: cleng

cleng — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:35:02 +0000

it seems to me that marketman’s hungering for his pound of flesh, it’s not as if your photo of the yema is so darn extraordinary!hello! ceniza has apologized already, but it’s not enough for you Mr Marketman, perhaps you’re so perfect that you cannot forgive others’ lapses. May the Lord be as exacting as you when Judgment Day comes. Peace, man!

By: ajyoung

ajyoung — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:45:44 +0000

yes acidboy, you hit the spot. i dont find it entertaining or amusing anymore. di ba sila tinuturuan ng nanay nila? tsk! tsk!

By: Wilson Cariaga

Wilson Cariaga — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:35:37 +0000

what you’re doing is right mr. marketman. . . if you didn’t bother doing any action to this. . . it wouldn’t stop, more and more things like this could happen again. . .