# Photography Section #

another 

These aren't your photographs then? One is marked as Max Waugh, the other doesn't seem to be credited. 

well no but i love photography  so i look at photographs all the time in envy.. i  cant effort a camera right now but i used to have 2 SLR Praticas and could use them with speed to get photos in riots in belfast

I don't need to read that, I know what a creative commons licence is, I studied law. That still doesn't give you permission to use other people's work unless it has that particular licence, which most pro photographers don't use for their main work as it loses them revenue. Lots of people seem to think that photographers will like the "free advertising" or "exposure". Pros don't, as a general rule. It's always best to check specifically that a particular image has the correct licence for free use (which usually entails crediting the photographer, or ask the photographer for explicit permission. That way, no one will get a nasty surprise. A watermark isn't needed and lots of photographers don't like them because they spoil the image. They'll do other things to try to prevent their work being hijacked, such as make the image as small as it can be and still be of viewable quality, disable right click so it can't be (easily) downloaded etc. Watermarks are a last resort for many.  ..."There is no legal need to place watermarks on your images. Once you make it, it is automatically copyrighted.". When it comes to non-commercial use, such as posting to a forum, etc, people think it doesn't matter, but; "Permission will usually be required because you are copying the images and communicating them to the public" (.gov.uk copyright law). Lastly, apart from anything else, it's just polite to ask. I have no idea what licences those images you posted have, they may be perfectly valid, but they may not, which is why I asked. As someone who's had my work pilfered in the past, it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine. Sorry!

I don't need to read that, I know what a creative commons licence is, I studied law. That still doesn't give you permission to use other people's work unless it has that particular licence, which most pro photographers don't use for their main work as it loses them revenue. Lots of people seem to think that photographers will like the "free advertising" or "exposure". Pros don't, as a general rule. It's always best to check specifically that a particular image has the correct licence for free use (which usually entails crediting the photographer, or ask the photographer for explicit permission. That way, no one will get a nasty surprise. A watermark isn't needed and lots of photographers don't like them because they spoil the image. They'll do other things to try to prevent their work being hijacked, such as make the image as small as it can be and still be of viewable quality, disable right click so it can't be (easily) downloaded etc. Watermarks are a last resort for many.  ..."There is no legal need to place watermarks on your images. Once you make it, it is automatically copyrighted.". When it comes to non-commercial use, such as posting to a forum, etc, people think it doesn't matter, but; "Permission will usually be required because you are copying the images and communicating them to the public" (.gov.uk copyright law). Lastly, apart from anything else, it's just polite to ask. I have no idea what licences those images you posted have, they may be perfectly valid, but they may not, which is why I asked. As someone who's had my work pilfered in the past, it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine. Sorry!