jkm757 Loc: San Diego, Ca.

You copied that right out of the politicians playbook didn't you?

BatManPete Loc: Way Up North!

Using Corel Draw - works good for me!

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

If a person willingly posts their photos on the internet, a public domain, with no copyright mark, then its "fair game."

So, if you don't want your photos used you better keep them off the net.. or be prepared to spend that $100K.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I think you made an assumption that you shouldn't have, and that you made your typical inflammatory comment, outhouse.

ron49 Loc: Baltimore, MD

Suppose you start with a very detailed image taken with 3000 by 4000 pixels. And you convert it to 300 x 400 pixels. That conversion process preserves only the details that are visible at 300x400. There is no way to use only the 300x400 photo to obtain higher resolution. The information is simply not there.

But there is one caveat. Upsampling algorithms (software to add pixels to an image) can differ greatly in the accuracy of the pixels that are added. Upsampling must be done to make a large print of a low resolution photo (or to display it with more than 300x400 pixels on a screen).

Let me give one example. The worst way to double the size of a photo (to make a 300x400 photo into a 600x800 photo) is to replicate each pixel three times - every pixel in the 300x400 image appears four times instead of once. This obviously does not add any information. And it is theoretically wrong as well. The correct way to add pixels is mathematically complex and creates an image that looks much more natural than one made by pixel replication. But it will NOT have the details that would be present in a 600x800 image created by downsampling the original 3000x4000 image. I hope this is clear.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

There is a lot of "opinion" and misinformation here and have yet to see a legal ruling.
There are more court systems in the world than the US one.

And here is a line from the link provided by "All hat and no cattle Donald"
Please keep in mind that the information presented here is only general information. True legal advice must be provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship specifically with reference to all the facts of a particular situation. Such is not the case here, so this information must not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney.

If a person willingly posts their photos on the internet - they are NOT "fair game".

If they were "fair game" then the DCMA system would not work. And it DOES work.

js15063 Loc: Monongahela, PA

Sarcasm not appreciated. Yet some people feel it their duty to scrutinize someones post. Why is it that some people on here feel that they are entitled to judge any and all posts made by other people. If you know so much, why do you belong to this site. You certainly aren't helping anyone by answering the question they ask. I would love to see a post on here that doesn't get off subject just so a few know it all people can get in there and tell you how wrong you are. I used to love coming to this site but lately I can take it or leave it. I would rather not post a question on here as I know I won't get the answer I'm looking for but rather have some know it all take it to another subject. My 2 cents. Sorry for the rant but I can't take it anymore.

EstherP

Sorry, Gambler, while the internet may be public domain (it isn't as far as content is concerned - even websites are copyrighted as they too, are intellectual property), putting something on the internet does not make it "fair game."
What it does do, is turn the person who treats copyrighted material as "fair game" into a thief.
Sorry to be so harsh, I know that many people don't agree with me, but even more will.
What's wrong with sending a note to the owner of the image, telling him/her that you really like the image and would like to use it for such-and-such, is that OK?
EstherP

Joe3 Loc: The Villages, Fl

He was.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Loosely the term for doing what the OP wants to do is called "uprezzing" for upping resolution of an image.

Google that word and you will find plenty of information on the process. I suspect the software linked by MDorn is good.

bypassing arguments about the process and ethics, I have had situations where an image that I SHOT simply would not print up to a size that I wanted to achieve. I have used dedicated "uprezzing" software to allow me to print up from a size of 13x19, to a new size of 20x24 and greater. Image Quality on the new print was very good and quite usable.

Remember that pixel peeking is not allowed on printed images and the proper viewing distance of any image is the length of the diagonal. Therefore, if you "uprez" an image, for a larger print size, you also increase the viewing distance a bit.

The process is legal and viable, and with the right selection of software, perfectly legal. The ethics argument is a separate issue altogether, to be left to lawyers and the courts, and the owner of the original image.

I used to do a lot more printing than I do now, and I have been very happy with the results of "uprezzing". It took me doing the trial software with a half dozen different programs for just that process.

As mentioned, it is simply a process of a software doing an interpolation to create more pixels. A good "uprezzing" program works similarly but in reverse of the compression algorythm use in the .jpg format by JPEG. It creates more pixels and it chooses the colors of the new pixels, much like jpg compression chooses to re-map pixel colors during a SAVE.

Now I suspect some tech-head programmer will "flame" me for an over simplified statement in the last paragraph, but I am prepared. I have my flame resistant boxers on, and fireproof gloves at the keyboard. So "flame" away.

In real life the "uprezzing" process is alive and well. It works nicely on moderate increases in pixel generation, and can produce a high quality image file within it's limitations.

NOTE: I am not condoning the use of copyrighted material as most on the internet certainly is simply by implication. I DO think the issue of legality is beyond the ken of most posters on photograph forum, unless they have passed a state bar and have practiced in the industry.

I guess I am saying bringing up the copyright issue on this post is largely OFF TOPIC, and would request a STFU on the point.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

=======================

This IS the total reason that I post my photographs to be viewed "on-line" as 72 DPI // 12 X 8 (Physical size) 864 X 591 Pix.... AND I "splatter" my name on it .. Sometimes on a diagonal - and sometimes on the Lower Right.

IF someone would like to have a Print of any size, the Print does NOT have the "splatter" on it...

IF the client wishes to have my signature on the bottom right - or on the back, that is his dissection.

BUT by and large of a few sites that I have been on in the past there are a few OUT THERE would copy and call My Work their own. And most often "they" will re-crop the image so as to Not have the name on the lower right.

All that being said....

If some one would wish to have a PRINT of my work, or use it as a advertisement they can pay the usually fee for doing so.

IF they are friends, and others, who wish to make use of My Work as a "screensaver" so be it.. HOWEVER the "Splatter" remains as part of The Copied Image.

This is My Thoughts on this -- Others will, and should, have their own.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The last time I heard someone use "upsampling," it was at a buffet restaurant. "Where's Bill?" "He's up sampling the desserts."

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I know that this has been discussed at length recently, but WHY do they have to be 'converted' to 300 dpi?
That's only a print spec.
Has nothing to do with the actual image file size/resolution/etc.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

The main reason web sites use low resolution is to keep people from stealing the images off the web site. Once the owner reduces the image resolution down to 72 dpi you cannot increase what is no longer there.

If you are trying to use Royalty Free images from the Web you usually have to sign-up for membership, and then receive hyper-links to the image in question.

Michael G

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

We all have our own opinions on everything. But, I see this like, don't leave your keys in your car if you don't want it stolen.

Again, if you don't want to share and want to get paid for your photo, keep it off the internet forums! That is why I don't post many photos that I like and want to keep the ownership. If someone takes them how do you stop it? Going to file a lawsuit?
I don't think so.... Splash your big copyright all across the photo or make it such a small file that no one can use it.
But, don't whine if someone uses your best photo if it is on a public forum. With all due respect, in my opinion, it is "fair game." And, website content is copied everyday.
There are no ethics among some photographers and authors, except when it comes to their own stuff..

About all one can do is to declare that the photos are not to be reproduced without permission and hope people respect your wishes.