Paradise - Chicago, IL

So you’re uploading images from someone who has watermarked them? Presumably that person is trying to protect his images. Does that seem appropriate?

What’s up with it is that the owner of the photo has the right to protect his or her image. It doesn’t matter if you or I understand it or agree with it. The age of the photo and the subject matter are also irrelevant. In many cases the owners of photos have taken on considerable effort and expense to find these images and then have them scanned. In this case we’re talking about a negative. As an example, where I live it costs about $30 to have a print made from a negative, which includes a digital image made from the print. I’ve done that for the images of the Paradise I’ve uploaded. One was from an 8x10 glass negative which was fairly costly to have done, and in addition to that the purchase price of the negative was well over $100. And this doesn’t take into account the effort involved in getting all this done. I didn’t try to protect any of mine because I just wanted to make them available to viewers on Cinema Treasures. I would also note that the person who uploaded this image also uploaded three others of the Paradise recently. For two of those he cropped the image so the water mark would not be visible. Do you see a problem with that? If he wanted to upload these to Cinema Treasures he should have asked for permission from the owner.