I think the original intent of the watermarking was to stop 440 from using images from CEO, .

The whole purpose of a watermark is to show OWNERSHIP of the item watermarked,
none ( at least to my knowledge) of any images, youtube video's placed here and watermarked were shot/produced by ceo


Who finds it first online gets to say its theirs. doesn't work like that

You, of all, should understand stealing someone else's work (even if they did not watermark it) an saying its urs, is wrong

vladimir wrote:I understand watermarks, but not everyone sticks with an original idea. It is possible it was intended for the use I suggested, why don't you ask GM directly? I cannot read his mind. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean I know what GM was thinking.

I've asked you this before, but I don't recall getting an answer:

You make money from photography, right? How much of that ever gets back to your subjects, for example young kids? Do you even ask them to take photos? Some say you should, I know that doesn't suit you so you disagree, no doubt, but that doesn't mean you are acting professionally or even ethically.

Some might say it's a new low for richard's photography.

Has every single photo posted on 440 ever been cited properly? No. Have you ever whinged about that?

You're also the guy who suggested we give money to corrupt cops or leave, so your ethics are kind of shitty even by Khmer scammer standards. How you can, with straight face, whine about forum watermarks after trying to endorse corruption, absolutely laughable.

It must be new low for corruption when they get expats to raise funds for them. Do you get a cut?

I suggest you contact GM re your present whinge here. I do not and cannot answer for him, I merely posited a theory.

I do not need to defend my art, but i will cause i think many have a different view of what street portraiture is all about

I do not know ANY PHOTOGRAPHERS present or past or heard of any that shoot street photography/portraits (Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Margareth Bourke-White, Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank, Dorothea Lange, Lee friendladner , Mary Ellan Mark and many many more) that pay their subjects. Many shoot off the cuff so to speak an if u look at their work u will see many are NOT happy about having their portraits shot.

Do you think the most famous of photos of the Vietnam war the photographer asked for permission or compensated the subject?

Nick Ut

Eddie Adams


Malcolm Browne

Or how about these, just cause they are newsworthy does that mean they are different laws than the ones i take? According to you an others , the answer would still be yes.

Robert Capa


Jeff Widener


Kevin Carter


John Filo

Many times, ( if u look at my photos) they are usually looking right at me at times, even posing, they accept i am taking their photographs and by consensual approval, give me permission, even thou it may not be written. Those that do not, turn away and i walk away an accept that they do not want their photos taken.
LOTS of times, if i am shooting in an area like PP, where i used to live, or will return to, i have photos printed an returned and passed them out, ( i'd say 75% of my portraits at the dump i passed out photos) I did an do this alot an people really appreciate it.

Has every photo on here or k440 been credited properly

NO
its not the posting i object to as mush as ceo claiming it it theirs (by watermarking it) when it is not.

I do not defend nor accept corruption, its wrong but living in se asia if you choose to not accept it , well we both know you will not last long here

I am sure you right about why GM puts the ceo watermark on , but that does not make it right.

I suggest you contact GM re your present whinge here

You started this and i merely gave my opinions. same as you, I do not start harping on this as GM gets upset at me

I dont have the gift of words you do and i know that, so accept my poorly written sentences and try an understand what i write. Fair enough?

See ya on the flip side OD