Anyone feel like makeing this Pics look cool

[Nick110]

Well basically what the title says. Experiment with this pics and make them look cool. But I do want it to say Nick Bender #110 on them somewhere in no specific order.

The person that makes the coolest pics wins a Pat on the back by themself. Thanks and enjoy.


http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/noproof5.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/noproof4.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/14-1.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/SH2.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/SH4.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/noproof10.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f29/nick110/BPG/noproof8.jpg

Pic anyone you want.:D

[JRP]

thought this looked pretty cool. Jus inverted the colors.

[Nick110]

Hmm... Not bad. For a white guy

I still don't understand why people like you watermark your images right away, its so annoying. If your going to have stuff done with them, waterkark AFTER! or just not watermark at all. If somebody is gonna take a pic and say its them, its not hard to remove a watermark, just takes some photoshop skills.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Crath
I still don't understand why people like you watermark your images right away, its so annoying. If your going to have stuff done with them, waterkark AFTER! or just not watermark at all. If somebody is gonna take a pic and say its them, its not hard to remove a watermark, just takes some photoshop skills.

actually they are not his, and removing the watermark can lead to a call from a photographers lawyer for copyright infringement.

Originally posted by Pappy
actually they are not his, and removing the watermark can lead to a call from a photographers lawyer for copyright infringement. well assuming they were of him, i said that

why doy ou want cool stuff done to pictures of other people o.0

and atvriders watermark is not photographer I belive

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Crath
well assuming they were of him, i said that

why doy ou want cool stuff done to pictures of other people o.0

and atvriders watermark is not photographer I belive

a watermark of any form is bonofide and can be held up for copyrighted materials. there are even hiden watermarks available that viewers never see, but they are there and can be enforced if the photographer chooses to pursue the issue.

[Nick110]

The pics are of me, but I didnt take them. Pappy and Shane took them and posted them.


Crath I just want something done to my pics to make them look cool because I see what some of you guys can do. I didnt need this Drama for a little thread.

Originally posted by Pappy
a watermark of any form is bonofide and can be held up for copyrighted materials. there are even hiden watermarks available that viewers never see, but they are there and can be enforced if the photographer chooses to pursue the issue. so you (atvriders) takes pictures of people, and don't let them have it unless your name is on it?

[Pappy]

Any of our photgraphers can watermark thier pictures, it is thier property. Harlen and I usually just use the atvriders logo, others have differing variations. The actual rights to the photograph remain with the photographer.

If a photograph is sold, the water mark is removed and before the sale an agreement is decided upon as to what the photograph will be used for. If it is for someones personal use, it may be worth say $15. If it will be used in a magazine or other publication a price can be negotiated.

Here is a small bitabout copyrights:

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

I'm not in the photo biz or am not leaning twards it, I think that thats a pretty dumb idea you can put your name on a photo of somebody else and call it yours, but thats just me.

Maby adding a additional strip to the bottom of the image, and putting your name on it is a great idea, and if anybody removes it do something about it, but smack dab on the pictures is just... oh well.

[Pappy]

there is no difference between a painting and a photograph. both are created and the creator holds all rights to the photo. Exception being if it is a picture of a painting...lol (not kidding either)


the reason watermarks are put in areas that they are is to prevent others from using them without showing the watermark. there is no point in adding a watermark that can be removed by a simple re crop. it also helps when legalities are concerned because you can show that the person knowingly removed the watermark. and when you apply a watermark to 800 pictures at once, they can cover the main subject, it is indiscriminant.

:(

3 wheeler anybody??:o

[MX MaNiAc 06]

lmfao thats hillarious

[Nick110]

Hahaha thats pretty good.

[exrider008]

Marshmello those look great!!

1

2

[theTman]

my 5 min attempt

[theTman]

last one

[300extreme#8]

lol

[Nick110]

anyone else. And can you put Nick Bender #110 on them.

hows this

#2

[Rider-trx_250ex]

yo marshmello, what program do u use to edit those photos and what is that design that looks like rays of light called?

[Ruby Soho]

hows this?

[Nick110]

Originally posted by Ruby Soho
hows this?

I like that one the best.

No offense Marshmello I know you were trying to help but you have no sense of style.

[atvRiDa400ex]

here is my 2 sec. try

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/mestoe/z1.jpg

[Ruby Soho]

two more:

[red4r]

my attempt lol

http://myspace-983.vo.llnwd.net/00913/38/90/913110983_l.jpg

[Ruby Soho]

2nd

[Mxjunkie]

got bored

[Nick110]

Looks great guys. Keep em coming if you want.

doesnt a photographer have to ask permisson to take pictures of somebody?

[Mxjunkie]

Originally posted by the gangsta
doesnt a photographer have to ask permisson to take pictures of somebody?

Nah, rapid image and such comes to rausch all the time and they take pictures of everyone.

Now as far as celeb's and such, I'm not to sure. I know you see millions of people taking pictures of them so I would asume not.

[400exc]

nothin special...... im not good at puttin the name on it

[400exc]

my post would go good with a pic wouldnt it?

[cam400ex]

here's one

[Pappy]

Originally posted by the gangsta
doesnt a photographer have to ask permisson to take pictures of somebody?

Nope.

The only time a photgrapher needs permission is to resell the photograph is in commercial usage, like in advertising.

If you snapped a killer shot of Natalie and sold it to a magazine you are fine. But if you tried selling it to say Honda without a model release from Natalie you are liable for financial resitution to Natalie.

[atvRiDa400ex]

Originally posted by Pappy
Nope.

The only time a photgrapher needs permission is to resell the photograph is in commercial usage, like in advertising.

If you snapped a killer shot of Natalie and sold it to a magazine you are fine. But if you tried selling it to say Honda without a model release from Natalie you are liable for financial resitution to Natalie.

AMEN brotha AMEN...

Originally posted by Nick110
I like that one the best.

No offense Marshmello I know you were trying to help but you have no sense of style.


no comment :o

[mx428]

:(

[gbcap]

Originally posted by Marshmello
no comment :o

ask for help and then bash. wth. haha. he didn't even try that hard with most of them i'm sure.




when you are in public you do not have the right to tell someone not to take a picture of you. unless there is some kind of court order because of harrasment (celebrities). when you use someone elses picture without thier permission that isn't right.

the reason they can take a picture of YOU and use it as THIERS is because it was there time, thier money, and thier camera they used/spent to get those pictures.

so what your saying is, pappy should go to all the races he does, and take your picture, post it up on the internet and just GIVE it to you because he is nice. well that would rule but how is he going to pay for his $3k camera and all the gas to get too and from. he gives some pictures out for free but not many and i don't blame him.

i do just cause i do it for fun right now. my pictures aren't as good, and i don't go out of my way to get them right now.

[QuadJunkies]

Originally posted by the gangsta
doesnt a photographer have to ask permisson to take pictures of somebody? No, not always ...thats up to the photographer actually.Ive personally had some dealings of this myself recently and got some info Ive been reading about it . I did however ask the riders first if they minded just to be courtious.I most certainly will be doing my homework due to advertising and reproduction ect.. (Im reading the info in American Society of Photographers someone sent me)Pappy summed it up best.

Can you imagine how many people you would have to ask when your shooting an event?:huh

[Pappy]

Lets make this easy:p

Say the clothing company that made Nick110's gear loves a shot myself or any other photog posts. They contact Nick and he sends them a picture that he copied off the site. Nick recieves maybe a free jersey....


4 months later as I am sitting on the porcelian god, thumbing my way through the latest catalog, low and behold I see my picture gracing the pages being used in an advertisement for XYZ gear. That shot to me may have been worth $75 to $500.

There is alot more to photography and the business of photography then most realize, I just want everyone to know it is NOT to keep someone from getting away without buying a picture they want for themselves.

And in the above scenerio, I WOULD have to get a release from Nick or his parents to sell the picture!

[QuadJunkies]

Originally posted by Pappy
Lets make this easy:p


There is alot more to photography and the business of photography then most realize, !

Boy, I GUESS... after what I have read so far. Theres a TON on stuff thats just covered on copyrights...LOTS to have to absorb for sure!:scary:

[Pappy]

Well, there are grey areas also. Lets say that shot of Nick was never posted. It is an unkown rider on a public track. The release is not needed for any type of usage. The same goes for "crowd" shots.


BUT! Lets say a rider has a number 4 on his quad and is recognizable, yep, you need a release! It can get complicated and most fail to even realize they have rights to thier image as do the photographers! The average person would be thrilled seeing themselves in a magazine, and I usually send an email or make a phone call just to let them know I am using thier pic for an advertisment sale etc. The average sale is small in the money department and very very few would be considered money making sales, especially in the ATV business!

Nick, sorry to highjack the thread...you know all you have to do is ask and you can have a copy of any picture I have of you:p

[Nick110]

Originally posted by Pappy
Well, there are grey areas also. Lets say that shot of Nick was never posted. It is an unkown rider on a public track. The release is not needed for any type of usage. The same goes for "crowd" shots.


BUT! Lets say a rider has a number 4 on his quad and is recognizable, yep, you need a release! It can get complicated and most fail to even realize they have rights to thier image as do the photographers! The average person would be thrilled seeing themselves in a magazine, and I usually send an email or make a phone call just to let them know I am using thier pic for an advertisment sale etc. The average sale is small in the money department and very very few would be considered money making sales, especially in the ATV business!

Nick, sorry to highjack the thread...you know all you have to do is ask and you can have a copy of any picture I have of you:p



Im not to worried about the thread being hijacked. And yes I know.:)

[cam400ex]

heres one i did tonight

[cam400ex]

i got bored