Tell you what I cannot understand—why do some members endorse their images with the copyright logo. Its a bit optimistic that someone will wish to nick them, is it not. On all the public sites there must be millions of photo”s not getting nicked.Who would want them?? I ask. Glossy”s like Cheshire Life for example would only accept excellent large format transparencies–advertising companies would not risk their reputation,other amateurs for clubs bide by the rules.We lock our cars and bikes, but we would not chain the fridge down–would we??Also the 650 size on the forum would be of no use to anyone. Got Sasha micro-chipped but my photo”s are worthless–anybody is welcome–who knows they might appear in a newspaper.
Almost every time one appears it is because I have put it on, so it is all about caring for someone else’s work.
You are right that a “650” is no use in trying to make a whopping print but it could still be used on website etc., (BTW magazines no longer insist on trannies, they have now joined the digital age too). BTW, On One software makes a pretty good job of enlargement and so does Lightroom.
When it appears on my own pictures it is because I have a little preset in Lightroom for making 650px pictures and I chose to include my name. I know many say they don’t care about copyright – well that is their decision.
People have used other’s work in competitions. The chance of being found out is quite high, but it often happens after the event, to the embarrassment of the organisers, when more pairs of eyes are viewing. Even using bits of others work is against the rules in all comps for still images as far as I know.
There are some very sophisticated tools for searching for your own pictures on the web and checking if anyone has pinched them.