Is it worth watermarking?

C

Cranky

Messages
472
Edit My Images
Yes
My pics are at best amaturiesh but is it worth sticking a watermark on them?

I host them on flickr so i'm guessing they are already copyrighted to an extent but is it worth putting my name on them or should I only be concerned if/when I ever get better and want to make some money from them?

Cheers Si
 
YES - it's worth watermarking them or they will get ripped off. They are your work - your copyright - so protect them as you would any of your other property! Doesn't stop everyone stealing the pics but it will stop some.
 
If you do then please don't put "XYZ PHOTOGRAPHY" on them, just use your name.
 
tigerimages said:
If you do then please don't put "XYZ PHOTOGRAPHY" on them, just use your name.
Click to expand...

I am never sure how that helps.

I use watermarking as A) a deterant to stop people using them B) To provide a link for someone to either see more photos or contact me. So my watermark is the url of my website (JLProductions.co.uk).
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
So my watermark is the url of my website (JLProductions.co.uk).
Click to expand...
Which is fine, but I hate to see your average Bob with a camera posting average photos on that there t'internet with "Average Bob Photography" stamped all over them suggesting that Average Bob Photography is a professional company when it's just some dude tinkering around with snaps on his or her PC in the spare room.
 
tigerimages said:
Which is fine, but I hate to see your average Bob with a camera posting average photos on that there t'internet with "Average Bob Photography" stamped all over them suggesting that Average Bob Photography is a professional company when it's just some dude tinkering around with snaps on his or her PC in the spare room.
Click to expand...


most people that watermark their pictures are not proffessional in terms of income gained from photography anyway.
 
tigerimages said:
Which is fine, but I hate to see your average Bob with a camera posting average photos on that there t'internet with "Average Bob Photography" stamped all over them suggesting that Average Bob Photography is a professional company when it's just some dude tinkering around with snaps on his or her PC in the spare room.
Click to expand...

Why is this a problem?

My pictures are mostly just snaps of things i like, and when my site is up and running i will be putting my website on my pics, not so i look like a professional company but so other people who may be interested in the same thing can see them.

Nick
 
The snobbery is strong in this thread!

Whatever next? Not being allowed to watermark unless one has a 1st in photography from only either Oxford or Cambridge?

Sheesh. I love it when "professionals" have a go at Average Bob for "poor" photography. It's like claiming rock music is better than jazz or something - ie - pointless.
 
Myky D said:
The snobbery is strong in this thread!

Whatever next? Not being allowed to watermark unless one has a 1st in photography from only either Oxford or Cambridge?

Sheesh. I love it when "professionals" have a go at Average Bob for "poor" photography. It's like claiming rock music is better than jazz or something - ie - pointless.
Click to expand...

:plus1:Spot on!

If ANYONE takes a photograph and wants to display ANY WATERMARK THEY CHOOSE to protect it from theft, that's fine by me.

I sometimes wonder where some people are coming from :nuts:

Neil
 
neilmac said:
:plus1:Spot on!

If ANYONE takes a photograph and wants to display ANY WATERMARK THEY CHOOSE to protect it from theft, that's fine by me.

I sometimes wonder where some people are coming from :nuts:

Neil
Click to expand...
Theft?

FFS :bang:

One of my photos was used yesterday without prior permission on the front cover of a publication that was being sold for £2 a copy yet I didn't receive a penny for it and I even had to pay £2 to get a copy myself, yet I didn't consider it THEFT.

What an over exaggeration!
 
tigerimages said:
Theft?

FFS :bang:

One of my photos was used yesterday without prior permission on the front cover of a publication that was being sold for £2 a copy yet I didn't receive a penny for it and I even had to pay £2 to get a copy myself, yet I didn't consider it THEFT.

What an over exaggeration!
Click to expand...

Theft is theft my friend - no exaggeration

And YOU paid £2 to see the copy of your own photo?
 
tigerimages said:
Theft?

FFS :bang:

One of my photos was used yesterday without prior permission on the front cover of a publication that was being sold for £2 a copy yet I didn't receive a penny for it and I even had to pay £2 to get a copy myself, yet I didn't consider it THEFT.

What an over exaggeration!
Click to expand...

I would consider that theft, yup.
 
LOOL, If I'd have gone stomping around looking for the "THIEF" I'd have been laughed out of the place. Some of you people need to take a reality check sometimes.
 
What if someone had come into your home and taken a printed copy of that photo off your mantlepiece for their cover? Would that be theft in your eyes then?

All they've taken is the photograph, but theft is theft no matter what the method used.
 
So OTT with the terminology and anologies. You can't steal something that you can't hold.

This is the photo that I has stolen, they broke in at the dead of night with balaclavas and all that on and thieved it off of me. Interpol are on the case.
 
At least if you don't watermark something and someone uses it you get the chance to charge them over the odds for using your photo without your permission, whereas if you watermark it properly you don't get that oppertunity as chances are unless your photos are really go they aern't going to want to pay for them.
 
Last edited:
tigerimages said:
You can't steal something that you can't hold.
Click to expand...

Wow! So I guess I can just hack into a bank and transfer a bunch of funds to my account because I am not holding the money, they are just numbers on my screen.
 
tigerimages said:
Theft?

FFS :bang:

One of my photos was used yesterday without prior permission on the front cover of a publication that was being sold for £2 a copy yet I didn't receive a penny for it and I even had to pay £2 to get a copy myself, yet I didn't consider it THEFT.

What an over exaggeration!
Click to expand...

A pretty poor example to use bearing in mind your later explanation....

tigerimages said:
You can't steal something that you can't hold.
Click to expand...

So ripping off music, films, other people's money online without touching it is ok?

Who needs the reality check? :thinking:

Come off it.
 
online though, it's just a bit of data in a pc. try and put a £1M in your bank online, you might do it but then try to draw it out!

And it was a perfect example from me, all it did was made everyones arguments look ridiculous when given a good example.
 
While I don't watermark my photos, I do provide them online at such a small size that anyone wanting to steal them is gonna have a really small photo for a desktop background or to print out.
 
tigerimages said:
online though, it's just a bit of data in a pc. try and put a £1M in your bank online, you might do it but then try to draw it out!
Click to expand...

So how is printing money that is "data in a pc" any different from printing your photograph? They are still the same basic crime. If software is just "data in a pc" then how come you buy it in a store, and obtaining it without paying is classed as theft?

I'm actually trying to determine whether you really believe this or are just pulling our legs. :shrug: :wacky:
 
Or do what I do - take utterly ace photos but completely fail to convince anyone other than your girlfriend that that's the case.
 
I will concede that it is not "theft" as the owner of the original is not deprived of the image, and so theft does not apply. It is copyright infringement which we all know still isn't legal. I guess I consider it theft in my mind as the original artist is deprived of compensation for their work, which seems like stealing money from their pockets. Different terms when it comes to the law, but the "taking something that is not yours" is still involved.
 
tigerimages said:
LOOL, If I'd have gone stomping around looking for the "THIEF" I'd have been laughed out of the place. Some of you people need to take a reality check sometimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah because it would have been totally insensitive.

If the Daily Mail printed your photo without a credit or payment you'd have gone mad.

And if the music companies call downloading music 'stealing', then I consider people taking my photos, printing them off and selling them on ebay 'stealing' too.

I watermark my images so people know who took them, linking back to my website. I don't really mind if people 'steal' my photos, because the only money I make from the hobby is from commissioned shoots and people buying photos that they've seen in houses where people have bought prints from me.
 
Last edited:
tigerimages said:
Snip...One of my photos was used yesterday without prior permission on the front cover of a publication that was being sold for £2 a copy yet I didn't receive a penny for it and I even had to pay £2 to get a copy myself, yet I didn't consider it THEFT.

What an over exaggeration!
Click to expand...

Alternatively, if you'd have had a contact website address as a watermark on the image, it'd have allowed them to get in contact with you and in view of the circumstances you'd have been glad to give them the rights to use your photo - and probably given them a full resolution copy for publishing.
 
tigerimages said:
..And it was a perfect example from me, all it did was made everyones arguments look ridiculous when given a good example.
Click to expand...

:LOL: Strike a light, have you accidently swallowed a whole pack of pro plus or something?
The only person looking ridiculous in this thread is you.
You sound like a child having a wobbler. Chill.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
:LOL: Strike a light, have you accidently swallowed a whole pack of pro plus or something?
The only person looking ridiculous in this thread is you.
You sound like a child having a wobbler. Chill.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Jeez it's not like it's the morning either and you've got the caffeine excuse.
 
Definitely watermark them, sometimes people complain that watermarks are 'distracting' too messy. I made a journal on deviantart not so long ago asking if I should watermark my photos a few people responded with 'You could do, but if you did i'm sorry but i'd not watch your page anymore.' 'I think they look ugly and are very distracting'.

Turns out when I did watermark my photos, nothing changed I still go the same views and safety. I don't want people ripping my models photos and using the on networking sites, it doesn't matter about quality it's about what you feel comfortable with :)
 
tigerimages said:
Which is fine, but I hate to see your average Bob with a camera posting average photos on that there t'internet with "Average Bob Photography" stamped all over them suggesting that Average Bob Photography is a professional company when it's just some dude tinkering around with snaps on his or her PC in the spare room.
Click to expand...

Average Bob photography you say?
Snaps you say?

Muahahaha...

3401217107_2157d3a6f5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top