How to create a copyright action

<p>When I take sports pictures, I sell images via my website. I do reduce the file size/resolution to discourage people from pirating the images, but if it is on the web, anything is possible. I have been using the type tool and putting the copyright symbol and my company name on each image, but that is so darn time consuming. Is there a way to create an action so I can accomplish the copyright imprinting quicker. Thanks in advance for input.</p>

sure, buy lightroom and never look back. . . if processing lots of images forget bridge and PS and just buy LR now and save yourself hours and hours of time . . .

<p>I will consider that, but I am assuming there is a way to do it in PS Elements, I just haven't figured it out yet.</p>

Haentzler, you'll kick yourself for not just buying the program now. It's built for what youre doing and the watermarking has lots on new options in 3.0 . . . . quit wasting time. . . or maybe your time's not worth much?

 

If your time is worth anything, you'll make back the investment in one night because what once took you hours will now take minutes . . .

 

Good luck . . .

 

Tony

<p>A few years back I got picture shark but have never bothered to used it.</p>

<p>R.A., it's simple: Just set up the action name (mine is just "©Text"), start the recorder, open the text tool and type the info where you usual do on the image, minus the year. Stop the recorder, and you're ready to go. When you open the action, all you have to do is add the year, adjust opacity, etc.<br /><br />You can use the same procedure to record your basic info in File Info, if you're not doing that already - again, minus the year and the image title.<br /><br />You don't need no steenking Lightroom :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>sure, buy lightroom and never look back. . . if processing lots of images forget bridge and PS and just buy LR now and save yourself hours and hours of time . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is kinda of incorrect; an exaggeration. You can't be familiar with the software, otherwise. LR, although awesome at what it does, is far from the be-all-to-end-all to a photographers post production.</p>

<p>I do like LR3 and the mogrify plugin for watermarking. Although the watermarking function is somewhat improved in LR3 over LR2, it still isn't as flexible as the mogrify plugin when using graphics for watermarking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>the poster did ask for an "action" I did not give him that answer. my fault. The poster did say he's a sports shooter and I was offering a suggestion as to how he could improve his business with a program called lightroom. the example was how the watermark works. It may or it may not be the end all be all program. some people like PS and still others have their other likes. . . some people like a big fancy watermark other's use their name. <br>

If youre processing a lot of photographs and as someone who still covers sports now and then, LR is the best thing i have found for processing huge numbers of files, watermarking them and getting them on the web. . . what once took days now take a few hours . . . <br>

In any event, the learning curve for LR is a cinch . . . the hardest part of it is the catalog system, and learning to think more like a photographer and less like a graphics or computer programmer. <br>

It's all about time, if you have youre workflow down pat, and think you can shave time off your processing and or afford to make things faster, stick with your existing system. . . <br>

Tony</p>

<p>Doesn't Elements not have actions selectable in Batch Process? That would put a damper on things, wouldn't it? I think in this case, if many images are involved, using Lightroom actually might save hours of time...</p>

"This is kinda of incorrect; an exaggeration. You can't be familiar with the software, otherwise. LR,

although awesome at what it does, is far from the be-all-to-end-all to a photographers post production."

 

Garrison, love to year more about what you think is better or at the very least why what i said is an

exaggeration. . . The guy needs a simple watermark, artful watermarkes dont get you anywhere . . .

you need a name and date the that's it . . . BTW no one system is the be all end all - not even cameras and lenses. things change. . . that said, I make my living from photography and i have yet to find anything that comes close to LR for $300 . . . there are some of the shelf programs but they will cost you a lot of money and have stuff in them that i dont need or want . . . anyhow, find one program that can do what LR does and in the way it does it, and let us know what it is . . . I run my entire post processing with LR . . . Go to my website, come back and tell me i need photoshop or some other program . . . Every images of the few that i have on my site were processed with LR - nothing else. So, what's a better program for turning over 1000's and 1000's of images in a timely and efficient manner in your view? Just curious . . .

<p>Under current US copyright law, all works are copyright the originator at the time they're created. No special notice or annotation is required.</p>

<p>While you may choose to affix a copyright symbol to the work, it's not a legal requirement. A notation such as your name or your studio name would be sufficient to identify the work as your property.</p>

<p>Further info at the Copyright Office website www.copyright.gov</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Leigh, I agree with your post, but my interest on putting the copyright symbol and studio name is to discourage less that stellar people from copying a picture, rather than purchasing from me. I assuming that my name across the photo may deter at least some individuals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Garrison, love to year more about what you think is better or at the very least why what i said is an exaggeration. ..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the exaggeration, as I already stated, is that LR doesn't save you hours and hours over using Bridge and Photoshop if you know Bridge and Photoshop. Are you able to export via Bridge and the Dr Russel Brown scripts or actions and The Image Processor?</p>

<p>Considering all the extra time LR takes for importing, sync-ing folders, updating/saving metadata and general database babysitting, I'm not convinced LR is quicker. I use both LR and Bridge in a hybrid raw workflow since LR1.3. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The guy needs a simple watermark, artful watermarkes dont get you anywhere . . . you need a name and date the that's it . . . BTW no one system is the be all end all - not even cameras and lenses. things change. . . that said, I make my living from photography and i have yet to find anything that comes close to LR for $300 . . . there are some of the shelf programs but they will cost you a lot of money and have stuff in them that i dont need or want . . . anyhow, find one program that can do what LR does and in the way it does it, and let us know what it is . . . I run my entire post processing with LR . . . Go to my website, come back and tell me i need photoshop or some other program . . . Every images of the few that i have on my site were processed with LR - nothing else. So, what's a better program for turning over 1000's and 1000's of images in a timely and efficient manner in your view? Just curious . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not going further off topic and arguing about things I didn't bring up when I've essentially agreed with you that LR is the prefered tool and that I also love it. Except that maybe I'll add that even the free Picasa would import, watermark and export quicker than LR? Tried it? It seems like it could.</p>

fair enough . . .

<p> Hmm, think i should run a simple test on all three, LR3, CS5 Bridge, and Picasa? See how long it takes to convert 8 gig of raw to web size jpg's with the three different apps? And another with a watermark?</p>

garrison, give it a try, use exactly the same images and then use images that need processing.

 

You would/should also consider cost and ease of use . . . to be fair. . .

 

I'm sure other's could come up with more and more ideas. I use LR now as a complete system having

totally gone away from PS and bridge in favor of LR.

 

Tony

<p>What software are you using?</p>

<p>Currently I am using PS Elements 7.</p>