<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Batch Picture Protector comments:]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/</link>
<description><![CDATA[free licensed software daily]]></description>
<language>en</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:22:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<atom:link href="https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>FeedWriter</generator>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: BobbyA]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102649</link>
<description><![CDATA[I think I see a problem with install. When I unzipped the download to get the 3 files (setup, readme, activate) and ran setup to install, then ran acitvate, it did not change from demo mode. I had to run activate again and allow activate to extract another copy of the 3 files. When I ran the activate that came out of the activate self extracting file, the program then showed it was registered.

Hope the watermarking works better than the install. 
Thanks for the tip on getting rid of the example folder &amp; files.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:22:50 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102649</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BobbyA]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Crissy]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102648</link>
<description><![CDATA[The free alternative that I've been using &amp; love is PhotoWham! which is a free download from zdnet.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:08:33 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102648</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Crissy]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: someone]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102647</link>
<description><![CDATA[@24 More likely copyright will ensure that creativity will dimish when prosecuted as law's (&amp; international treaties) demand. A simple example: a photo of a couple in front of a building (as background). Who owns the shot? 

I hear the echos of a few roaming: the architect of course. 

Should we start errecting forbidden signs everywhere? Or more cleverly: silently wait till enough violate something here &amp; there (out of accident probably) and then start sue'ing like hell to gain the most out of?  (which is already commonplace with patents btw)

I really wonder how long this will ultimately take to uprise enough upstir. 

The bottomline is: property is an illusion created to ensure profits above anything.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:30:23 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102647</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[someone]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: SlimJim]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102646</link>
<description><![CDATA[#3 "Slim" (er, nice name...) - Just because someone sends you a photo via eMail most certainly DOES NOT give you ownership. There's a very high prob. the person who sent it didn't own it either. Whoever TOOK the photo owns the photo... but they may not even be able to copyright the content.  For example, you can't copyright the photo of a piece of architecture created after 1992. The Photog has to gain permission of the architect to publish the photo.  Truth.  Copyright protects intellectual property. 

SlimJim]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:12:41 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102646</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[SlimJim]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: rezidue]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102645</link>
<description><![CDATA[#10 Jalon - what if someone uses save page as or uses a screen capture program? Seems to defeat the whole purpose.

Thanks GOTD and SoftOrbits for this great giveaway! (WinXP Pro SP2).]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:47:26 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102645</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[rezidue]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: BCRose]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102644</link>
<description><![CDATA[Bottom line people if you never took the image or paid for th rights it is NOT yours.  WHy do you thin just becasue yu can view it on your computer screen that it is your property?   That's just ignorance.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:26:15 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102644</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BCRose]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Angry]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102642</link>
<description><![CDATA[And the program does not include any free license! 

So all you get here is a demo version!!! 

I could not beleive it!]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:52:17 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102642</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Angry]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: mike]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102641</link>
<description><![CDATA[#9: <em>"Couldn’t you use that Picture Doctor that was given away recently to remove the watermarks?"</em>

That's at the root of the dilemma many people face... if you put the watermark over the main subject of an on-line image, they feel it would ruin it for friends, relatives, visitors -- but if you make it too discreet, or in a part of the image that doesn't matter, someone can fairly easily cut it off or edit the photo to get rid of it. That's what happened to 1 photo-journalist who simply put his (C) at the bottom of an award winning photo, &amp; then had it used, often without his (C) or permission by all sorts of publications on-line.

*  *  *

#10: <em>"http://www.sliceimage.com/ is a program for protecting web photos."</em>

And the screen snapshot apps previously on GOTD defeat it in seconds. ;-)

Images are *sliced* [broken into several pieces] for a variety of reasons -- back in the early-mid 90's I did it manually to animate parts of a larger image -- but for security can't see how it would be effective on anyone but the very PC illiterate. Tech Details: since there's no use for a sliced image other than the web, there's no reason to have it at anything but screen resolution, which is exactly what you get with a screen shot. You can use many PDF printers for that matter, &amp; just copy/past the images from the PDF -- they might even up-sample to higher rez for you.

*  *  *

#13: <em>"...if this software can watermark a DOCUMENT..."</em>

No... Document watermarks are something that depends on &amp; is part of the doc's format, say Word, PDF etc... Many (most? -- all?) of the PDF creating apps on GOTD in the past I think had watermarking, so you could take whatever doc, add a watermark, and save as pdf.

*  *  *

#14: <em>"...irritating to have the program open with that flower basket and four demo boxes checked too..."</em>

In the program folder is a sub-folder named: "Examples" -- delete it... app will then open *empty*.

*  *  *

#15: <em>"Just because a pic (or text for that matter) is on the Internet or comes to you via an email does not make it free or without copyright protections."</em>

Very true, but unfortunately the old saying: "Possession is 9/10 of the law" seems to apply. If/when PR is important violating etiquette is important -- Microsoft recently pulled a download app that *borrowed* some open-source code in a way that was frowned on. On-the-other-hand, the guy that did the famous Obama poster made a fortune &amp; won awards off an admitted stolen image! In fact from what I read, he sued the owner of the original image!]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:39:42 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102641</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[mike]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Jaysee]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102640</link>
<description><![CDATA[When I closed the program, there was a window saying this is a 30-day trial version. Not what I expected from the GOTD page.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:27:38 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102640</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jaysee]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: agesilaus]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102639</link>
<description><![CDATA[Slim,
   1) Taking someone else's image is theft pure and simple. 
   2) There is no way to prevent someone from taking an image once it is posted on the net. If you can see the image it is in your browser cache already downloaded. If they use Flash then there are apps to download flash imagery. And lastly a screen capture app will grab anything on the screen.
   3) The claim made in the blurb by the company above that the watermark cannot be removed is not correct, a short bit of work in Photoshop will clone out any watermark. If they are large and ugly enough then it may be hard to do it undetectably. But then if it is that big people won't look at the image in the first place. If they used steganography then that would be difficult to remove but I see no sign that they do.
   4) It is a violatin of the DMCA to remove a copyright notice and the fines are up to $50,000 per violation plus attorney fees.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:11:01 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/#comment-102639</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[agesilaus]]></dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>