Ok now i'm on a roll here. But this is this has really been on my mind. When uploading a pic. for caedes I was under the impression you should not have it marked with a signature or mark for idenitification. But i see alot of posts in the VB that are marked. Any feedback on this one. If this is so why are they allowed to stay on caedes. I will say that i have seen some great work but they have the tell tale ID marks. Bitch Bitch Bitch!! If i have misunderstood this please set me straight. Sandi

Well I put my signature on mine (blended in most of the time with the image in a corner) because i'm always being ripped, that way I can say THATS MINE GIVE IT BACK..

"If this is so why are they allowed to stay on caedes.".. If that happens a lot more people will leave.. I can't see why having a some sort of signature makes any difference, people go through the new images and see the image anyway before they vote therefore they have a fair idea of who did what or their friends send them a sneak preview..

"I will say that i have seen some great work but they have the tell tale ID marks." Does that make a difference to your voting? it shouldn't you should be looking unbiased at the image not at the artist..

Now the way you say you blend it in that is done very low key. My untrained eye has never noticed it. You do have a point about the pics going through the vb that you might already know by your friends lists etc. who they belong too. But I thought i read somewhere on here that pics should not be tagged. I would hate to see any of J_272004 work ripped off. It just seems that there is a loss of ethics to some degree. Going back to deleating our pet pics off of caedes because their not works of art and it is written you should not post snapshot pet pics. so why is this different with tagged posts. If that is the written rule. I don't mean to make anyone upset but just have been wondering about this and after the no artsy pets rule atarted to kick in more I thought i would mention this. Sandi

When one of my images wound up on a Chinese web site, I thought it would be a good idea to add a signature for identification. I've seen one of the mods post on here with a signature and one of the best photographers even has a little emblem, so what's the harm in protecting your own work? Just check out the Vigilante Justice Thread, just below on this board. I just found more of my images on this site too! That is why I want to put my signature on my images.

Sandi.. mine are ripped all the time like a lot of other members on here..

Thank you both for pointing out this problem. It's a real shame that this happens but then on internet land one just never knows. I will agree with you that the signature is a no harm deal and to protect your own work almost a need to type of deal. Thanks Jac. and Cynlee!! Sandi

As far as I know there is definitely no rule against adding watermarks to your images. Rips are a definite problem so it's actually a very good idea, just don't go overboard and plaster your name over the whole image. There is a rule against timestamps however since those are viewed as snapshots.

Sandi.. check out the vigilante thread you'll see just how many sites rip the work off here..

I did check out the vigilante thread and I should have read some of these discussions first. I'm straightened out and see that it is a problem and so now i do understand why alot of members use a watermark or logo of some sort. Thanks for the answers to my question. Sandi

I do not care, when the signatures are small. But when they are to big, take my view away from the image, I vote worse than I would without. But small signatures are not that bad as ... as an example dates on the images.

I put sigs on my work...I'm tired of people stealing it...trying to sell them as prints and putting them on MYSPACE! >:o

I will admit to putting photos on myspace and using them for not only my desktop but myspace background. Although I have them added none Have been created by me or in any way do i sell or say I did them unless they truly are "MY" work in which a caption is added saying its mine otherwise they sit in my pics for everyone to see. I highly agree that putting a signature on your work is acceptable. We are at an age where just about anything can be stolen at any given point. Most of my work is crap thus no need for me to sign it if ya steal it well grats ya got urself some shit but there are many tallented artists on here that deffinately deserve that right. I love caedes but if they remove your picture from a signature so you can protect whats yours then truly caedes doesnt deserve to have it. Protect what is YOURS... but please make it so others can admire it lol...

I have been adding my signature - hardly visible though, and I came to that decision as a way of protecting my work - but I also think that they could be cloned out rather easily, so I am probably wasting my time. I certainly wouldn't expect it to affect how anyone votes on any of my images, so I will probably still add it.

Rippers are usually too lazy or stupid to remove sigs. You would be surprised by how many rippers post work on caedes without removing sigs, some even proclaiming it as their own when it has someone elses website plastered on it... and anyone who frequents the vigilante forum knows how often people post our work on their sites without even changing the file name, which is the name of the artist.

I think that in 99% of cases a sig is enough to protect you. In my case I use my website address as this means that if my work is ripped it actually serves as advertising, and anyone who sees it can very easily see where it came from and who made it. I guess if you don't have your own site you could use your caedes gallery address (eg samatar.caedes.net) or similar.

Since I started seeing my work on other websites about a year ago, I started affixing the by now familiar "j" logo on all my submissions...Also when I use someone elses image in my compositions..I inquire them for permission first, and ALWAYS link to their post!

I see this is bringing in some comments. Since here on caedes I really don't think your supposed to have logo's on the pics. And after reading what Patti had to say that perhaps the logo's are cloned off anyway. I personally think that to have a very small logo blended in is much more benefical in that it does not really give away the artist and also rippers might not detect it to clone out of the pic. I think this actually would be more professional too. Also like Jhihmoac said it is only right to ask for permission to use someones work and then offer a link. > ♥:)sandi♥

There is nothing anywhere in the COC or FAQ about discouraging logos. Some people don't like them but that's their issue. I have had several images ripped with my logo on them and in no instance that I can recall have they ever been cloned out. Personally I don't see much benefit to myself in a logo that doesn't identify me as the author...

In all truth something that someone has worked on is theirs and they shall do with it as they please. I have said this similar thing recently. Logos should not if they are be discouraged. My work is all small projects i have done or simple photos I took and enjoyed myself so I wanted to share them. For the people who rip others off by stealing their shit is ridiculous. I personally say that you should sign your work if you have put the effort into it (for me not so much lol) because it does show that you are the one who created such a stunning image. Now for alot of the people here on caedes if you get in trouble for posting a signature on your work then most likely you won't need the help of caedes to spread your creations only because your so damn good. If anyone complains about them well let them your signature does not ruin a photo but only goes to show that you have achieved something that they foun beautiful enough to put on their desktop. So sign away my caedes friends!