"Behind the Curtain" Blog - All Comments

re: Just how much Faster is Shozam?

Tom Purse — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:51:52 GMT

I've had photos on Webshots for several years now but Shozam offers me more control and features for my photos. Watermarking comes to mind first. Shozam allows me to watermark my photos three different ways whereas Webshots, I've noticed, puts their own watermark on some of them. The slideshow is an excellent feature with the option to add audio. I receive email daily with good comments about my gallery and slide show. The features in Shozam totally outweigh the features (not many that I can see) on sites such as Webshots, Kodak, and others. Here today, gone tomorrow is also something that contributed to my buying Shozam. The maps are an excellent feature that I use with some of my photos, mainly because a large number of visitors to my website are from foreign countries and have emailed me numerous times asking where some of my photos were taken. Now they can click on a map and find out for themselves. Thanks Komotion for an excellent program!

re: The Image Protection Trade-off

Razvan Neagu — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:58:15 GMT

Ted, I posted in the new "HTML Forum" some thoughts on how the (CC) license compares to a regular copyright notices as well as information on how to include a Creative Commons (CC) license by inserting HTML code generated at the CC Web site:

http://shozam.communityserver.com/forums/thread/636.aspx

I have also posted information about some cool resources for creating custom graphic watermarks:

http://shozam.communityserver.com/forums/thread/643.aspx

Regards,

Razvan

re: The Image Protection Trade-off

RHWeiner — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:19:36 GMT

As it is my intent to showcase and not necessarily sell my images I'll probably only leave a smallish copyright. I'm also considering on not making it easy for web search engines to find my stuff as I'm doing a lot of glamour and some nude shots. I have heard from others that once the connection is made that their sites have these types of images they get hammered and subsequently get notification from their ISPs of the massive increase in traffic...sometimes not getting the notification but a huge bill for the extra bandwidth required.

Ultimately there is no real way to stop someone who *really* wants a copy of your photo. So the best bet is to keep the viewables to such a small pixel dimension and high enough compression rate as to stop people from printing out the photos. However, this does not stop the few occasions where someone will take the file, strip off any header/footer copyright info and claim it as their own (I've seen this happen). So for those you need to 'ruin the image' by throwing a watermark across it. If you do get complaints from individuals that they can't clearly see it, well...you have to suspect their motives for the complaint.

The only way to ensure that no one copies your images? Hard copies in a physical book that you keep with you. Very Old Tech!

Richard W.

re: The Image Protection Trade-off

Ted D. — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:14:13 GMT

I reelly like this concept but would it conflict with a copyright notice?

re: Radical Transparency

kkford — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:13:24 GMT

(The following Member comment was moved to this new blog, "Behind the Curtain" so user URL and avatar do not appear.)

Razvan,

Words such as yours, are reassuring to those of us who like Web Gallery Wizard and are wondering how Shozam! will compare and measure up. It is good to know that you remain focused on making this new product even better. So far so good.

I must confess that I find the sample themes disappointing when compared to Web Gallery Wizard's themes, but I note that more are to come. You track record is good, so we look forward to a swish end product.

Spondoolix