<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Batch Picture Protector is a powerful and easy-to-use batch image watermarking tool.Comments on: </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/</link>
	<description>free licensed software daily</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:11:29 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BobbyA</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169271</link>
		<dc:creator>BobbyA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169271</guid>
		<description>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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>Hope the watermarking works better than the install.<br />
Thanks for the tip on getting rid of the example folder &amp; files.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Crissy</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169256</link>
		<dc:creator>Crissy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:08:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169256</guid>
		<description>The free alternative that I&#039;ve been using &amp; love is PhotoWham! which is a free download from zdnet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The free alternative that I&#8217;ve been using &amp; love is PhotoWham! which is a free download from zdnet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: someone</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169252</link>
		<dc:creator>someone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169252</guid>
		<description>@24 More likely copyright will ensure that creativity will dimish when prosecuted as law&#039;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&#039;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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@24 More likely copyright will ensure that creativity will dimish when prosecuted as law&#8217;s (&amp; international treaties) demand. A simple example: a photo of a couple in front of a building (as background). Who owns the shot? </p>
<p>I hear the echos of a few roaming: the architect of course. </p>
<p>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&#8217;ing like hell to gain the most out of?  (which is already commonplace with patents btw)</p>
<p>I really wonder how long this will ultimately take to uprise enough upstir. </p>
<p>The bottomline is: property is an illusion created to ensure profits above anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SlimJim</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169248</link>
		<dc:creator>SlimJim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169248</guid>
		<description>#3 &quot;Slim&quot; (er, nice name...) - Just because someone sends you a photo via eMail most certainly DOES NOT give you ownership. There&#039;s a very high prob. the person who sent it didn&#039;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&#039;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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#3 &#8220;Slim&#8221; (er, nice name&#8230;) &#8211; Just because someone sends you a photo via eMail most certainly DOES NOT give you ownership. There&#8217;s a very high prob. the person who sent it didn&#8217;t own it either. Whoever TOOK the photo owns the photo&#8230; but they may not even be able to copyright the content.  For example, you can&#8217;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. </p>
<p>SlimJim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rezidue</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169244</link>
		<dc:creator>rezidue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169244</guid>
		<description>#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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#10 Jalon &#8211; what if someone uses save page as or uses a screen capture program? Seems to defeat the whole purpose.</p>
<p>Thanks GOTD and SoftOrbits for this great giveaway! (WinXP Pro SP2).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BCRose</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169242</link>
		<dc:creator>BCRose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169242</guid>
		<description>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&#039;s just ignorance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s just ignorance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TK</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169238</link>
		<dc:creator>TK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169238</guid>
		<description>#20 Angry (without justification) If you at least followed the instructions in the readme.txt file in the zip you downloaded from here then you would have had the free license activated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#20 Angry (without justification) If you at least followed the instructions in the readme.txt file in the zip you downloaded from here then you would have had the free license activated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angry</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169229</link>
		<dc:creator>Angry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169229</guid>
		<description>And the program does not include any free license! 

So all you get here is a demo version!!! 

I could not beleive it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the program does not include any free license! </p>
<p>So all you get here is a demo version!!! </p>
<p>I could not beleive it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169228</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169228</guid>
		<description>#9: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Couldn’t you use that Picture Doctor that was given away recently to remove the watermarks?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

That&#039;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&#039;t matter, someone can fairly easily cut it off or edit the photo to get rid of it. That&#039;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: &lt;em&gt;&quot;http://www.sliceimage.com/ is a program for protecting web photos.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

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&#039;s I did it manually to animate parts of a larger image -- but for security can&#039;t see how it would be effective on anyone but the very PC illiterate. Tech Details: since there&#039;s no use for a sliced image other than the web, there&#039;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: &lt;em&gt;&quot;...if this software can watermark a DOCUMENT...&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

No... Document watermarks are something that depends on &amp; is part of the doc&#039;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: &lt;em&gt;&quot;...irritating to have the program open with that flower basket and four demo boxes checked too...&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

In the program folder is a sub-folder named: &quot;Examples&quot; -- delete it... app will then open *empty*.

*  *  *

#15: &lt;em&gt;&quot;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.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Very true, but unfortunately the old saying: &quot;Possession is 9/10 of the law&quot; 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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#9: <em>&#8220;Couldn’t you use that Picture Doctor that was given away recently to remove the watermarks?&#8221;</em></p>
<p>That&#8217;s at the root of the dilemma many people face&#8230; if you put the watermark over the main subject of an on-line image, they feel it would ruin it for friends, relatives, visitors &#8212; but if you make it too discreet, or in a part of the image that doesn&#8217;t matter, someone can fairly easily cut it off or edit the photo to get rid of it. That&#8217;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.</p>
<p>*  *  *</p>
<p>#10: <em>&#8220;http://www.sliceimage.com/ is a program for protecting web photos.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>And the screen snapshot apps previously on GOTD defeat it in seconds. ;-)</p>
<p>Images are *sliced* [broken into several pieces] for a variety of reasons &#8212; back in the early-mid 90&#8242;s I did it manually to animate parts of a larger image &#8212; but for security can&#8217;t see how it would be effective on anyone but the very PC illiterate. Tech Details: since there&#8217;s no use for a sliced image other than the web, there&#8217;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 &#8212; they might even up-sample to higher rez for you.</p>
<p>*  *  *</p>
<p>#13: <em>&#8220;&#8230;if this software can watermark a DOCUMENT&#8230;&#8221;</em></p>
<p>No&#8230; Document watermarks are something that depends on &amp; is part of the doc&#8217;s format, say Word, PDF etc&#8230; Many (most? &#8212; 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.</p>
<p>*  *  *</p>
<p>#14: <em>&#8220;&#8230;irritating to have the program open with that flower basket and four demo boxes checked too&#8230;&#8221;</em></p>
<p>In the program folder is a sub-folder named: &#8220;Examples&#8221; &#8212; delete it&#8230; app will then open *empty*.</p>
<p>*  *  *</p>
<p>#15: <em>&#8220;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.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Very true, but unfortunately the old saying: &#8220;Possession is 9/10 of the law&#8221; seems to apply. If/when PR is important violating etiquette is important &#8212; 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!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaysee</title>
		<link>http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/batch-picture-protector/comment-page-1/#comment-169226</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaysee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?p=9538#comment-169226</guid>
		<description>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>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.531 seconds -->

