I don't know if something can be done about the photos uploaded to the site, specifically on named varieties in the database. I know I have chosen to upload and leave mine with a no reuse permissions and the copyright tagline on the bottom, but is there a way on your end to prevent our images we are uploading to be prevented from use by growers and resellers for their advertising or marketing? I had to reach out to one today that my image was being used and ask for it to be removed. They had cropped the image to take off the copyright line so it appears as their own unmarked image. I had been notified by another garden.org member that this was in use.

Would it be possible if someone attempts to download, that an algorithm you set slaps a big old watermark in the center of the image to prevent unauthorized use or copying of the image? Another idea would be to render the image to an unusable size for both web or print if it's downloaded. I know there is the watermark option for uploads; but it defeats the purpose of someone on the site looking at images. Or can a pop up with an unauthorized copying appear and it blocks download? Another idea would be to block a screen shot. I know it's a catch 22. But I don't like my images being used to fill someone else's coffers for free photos, I have to pay for things in life I want, what's up w the free photography in their marketing budgets? If they are going to sell, they should have their own images to post or purchase from a stock house.

Interested to hear your thoughts, this happens fairly often on the dahlia side of things and it's getting old. We share our photos for other gardeners or people who enjoy the blooms in our yard, not for someone else to load their site with unauthorized images so they can sell their stock. I'm hoping a solution can be made or I will stop uploading images to the database.

It saddens me that people do this. And besides, who has time to go through vendors websites to claim ones photos and ask frankly for a cease and desist?

@dave

Scarlet, you can go to "Watermark preferences" under "Settings", under "ScarletTricylce's menu:". Then, you can select a big old watermark which will appear on each image that you upload to the database.

Johannian said: Scarlet, you can go to "Watermark preferences" under "Settings", under "ScarletTricylce's menu:". Then, you can select a big old watermark which will appear on each image that you upload to the database.

I think it depends on how you take a picture (well, the focus). Even with the large watermark, it can still be cropped out, leaving a usable picture to "steal" (you can see the watermark at the bottom, but one could crop it out and still have a usable picture).

Johannian, I believe she already has it set up that way. I do, too, but my photos have been used without permission, as well.

Yep, you're spot on there, Hamwild!

Yes, she said

They had cropped the image to take off the copyright line so it appears as their own unmarked image.

Most comply when asked to remove images with an apology.
I had one a couple of months ago where I found my images listed in an Etsy shop, every single one of the photos she used were lifted from various sites, she didn't even bother to remove the watermark copyrights. I asked her to remove my images and that if she didn't comply, she risked having her shop shut down, especially since none of the images were hers, it was just a matter of time before someone else found theirs. I was blunt because it was not just one or two images, it was her entire shop and so many with glaring copyrights printed on them. She got nasty, said she went to her lawyer and she said if I didn't stop harassing her, (a one time note to her to remove my images does not constitute harassment) she had grounds to sue. I think she should find someone who gives better advice IMHO. Within a day, she had all but one listing deleted.
Unfortunately, once anyone adds anything to the www. it's fair game to many that don't care. It becomes a whack-a-mole game, I have one rose image in particular that I have to check for 1-2x a year.
Dave already disabled the right-click copy function with the enlarged database photos but most know how to get around that of course.

I'm just hoping if we are all helping build a lovely database of photos then hopefully there are better stop gaps set up with newer technology and even AI that could be employed to irradiate stolen images. Saying it's copyrighted and doing nothing post lift doesn't help the poster and will make us take a second thought about posting in the first place to the database. It's just frustrating as sometimes good thought is put into these images and if the seller actually hired a photographer to take images there would be a cost to them, yet lifting our images for their use saves them some cash. Well, probably a bunch of cash if they hired someone. I've worked the industry. I get what a copyright is, I get intellectual property. I don't understand people who don't give credit for their freebie taking.

Dave: if you do read this, I'm hoping something better can be implemented, I hate sending emails in hope they'll remove the image. I'm not a confrontational person but I also don't like my stuff being used without permission, and in my case there was no permission except for this site. If you'd like the site that both speak of, drop me a treemail, I'll provide the address. Appreciate your time!

A number of years ago I found my Hoya carnosa photo in use on the world of succulents website; they'd cropped the photo to remove my watermark and I contacted them and told them to either remove my photo or credit me as the owner. They never, ever responded and I just looked and the picture is still there but now below the picture it says: Via Dave's Garden. I haven't been a member at DG for years but I still have photos in the database there.

LOL, I just found another of my Hoya photos at that website, cropped to remove my copyright and the same printing below the photo, via DG.

It would appear that one has to apply a watermark that more or less ruins the photo (placed right in the middle of the interesting bits) in order to make it a truly effective deterrent to this kind of copyright violation.

I'm old enough to remember various past attempts in the digital world to make copyrighted material "radioactive" if used without permission, and they were all either incredibly disruptive or very easily bypassed. So in the end I don't think the desired solution is yet at hand, or ever will be. Not to be negative, just realistic, and curious to know if I might be wrong. In the meantime, the whack a mole game must go on.

I also do not identify with the watermark snipping mentality, the appropriation of somebody's work without even asking. It's not like we individual gardening enthusiasts are getting rich off our photography anyway, and it's not like we wouldn't be generous if asked.

At some level this situation feels a little like the public gardens that I have contributed to. You put a pretty plant out there that you have raised from seed or whatever, hoping to turn it into a public good. And then somebody notices it one day and takes it home. A small percentage of people will see something pretty in public and decide it should be theirs. I keep putting these things out there anyway (in physical and virtual form) because I have come to accept some appropriation as a cost of participation, to the extent that it can sometimes be managed.

I somewhat agree that putting the copyright info across the entire image in bands is probably the best way to stop image thieves, but even that's not foolproof (you've probably all run into images from Alamy showing that method). If you have the time and patience, you can manually do a pretty good job of getting rid of the copyright banners. Even though I don't want my images used elsewhere, I don't like ruining the image with copyright info on it.

It's too easy to just do a screen capture with the Prt Scr key on every keyboard, then paste it into any image editing software, edit away the copyright info, save it, and you've bypassed any and all safeguards. There's really nothing Dave can do to stop that.

@dave, any thoughts on this?