Watermarks - what do you think?

[specialman]

I've just spotted this thread from our ever-keen motorsport enthusiast Matt Sayle (good shots by the way matey) and although now there are none applied, originally there were watermarks on the images.

Now, I understand the purpose of a watermark and I understand that many photographers like Matt (only using him as an example) are protective of their work but are watermarks really that essential? I know we're not all a bunch of thieving scum )) but that there are some unscupulous people out there who'll try to claim credit for a shot, but are we A) being too paranoid and B) being precious over shots that might actually not be that good?

I've never been a fan of watermarked shots I've seen on here, simply because they spoil the view, especially in the C&C section where we are expected to view an image in its entirity, not with a giant copyright symbol over it. But many folk are now applying more subtle copyright symbols, usually their name and/or website address, and this to me ruins a shot also, especially when that shot is possibly up for sale.

What do you guys think? Are they a good idea to protect the intellectual property of a photographer or are they an overindulgence that's sometimes applied to work that isn't actually worth stealing?

 

[DiddyDave]

are they an overindulgence that's sometimes applied to work that isn't actually worth stealing?

I'm sold at this point - they are a waste of time in my opinion, and an unnecessary distraction from the work

:shake:

DD

 

[Jason Brown]

Watermarking a photograph can ensure that proper attribution is provided, it notifies viewers of legal protections governing use of such photographic work and facilitate licensing or a sale of a non-watermarked file. Personally I would say that it should be small enough so that you know it is there, or perhaps have on your own website and a copyright. If you do photography as a profession then it has to be a must, it is your livelihood.

 

[Betty]

I never watermark images here that I post for crit, I dont see the point.

I do however use them for my 365 pictures, like this...

And when I host images online for clients to view before they buy...

The amount of dire photos Ive seen on here with watermarks splashed all over them, I feel like saying dont flatter yourself

 

[DiddyDave]

If you do photography as a profession then it has to be a must, it is your livelihood.

Well I do - and I disagree entirely



DD

 

[DiddyDave]

The amount of dire photos Ive seen on here with watermarks splashed all over them, I feel like saying dont flatter yourself

I was just thinking that of your flower shot Dee

And OMG is that flower watermark annoying & distracting

What are you afraid of that warrants spoiling a nice flower shot like that?

That someone may steal it as a desktop? Good for them I say, glad they appreciate my work

That someone wants to pretend it's theirs? So what, the lying scum

That someone may print it? It'll be crap resolution, but if they really want to, so what

Even if the new 1024 px image size is adopted, that'll still only make a half decent 3" image as a print

Get over yourselves

DD

 

[Harlequin565]

I used to do it even though my shots aren't that good, but I stopped.

a) It annoys me when I look at my images.
b) It takes time shuffling the watermark about so that it's legible (often white watermark across white sky, or black watermark across black bits of the images)
c) I didn't see the point (your mileage may vary on this one!)

Now, all I do is ensure any web uploaded images are 72ppi jpegs with 70 or less quality and no larger than 600-800 pixels on the longest side. They look good on a monitor but are pretty useless for anything else.

I may be barking up the entirely wrong tree though. If I ever start to make any money off my images, I may well change that view.

-H

 

[haggis]

Oooooh DD!

Who got out the wrong side of the bed today then?!

I think there's a place for them but the reason needs to be something exceptional.

 

[DiddyDave]

Oooooh DD!

Who got out the wrong side of the bed today then?!

Nope - bed vacation was fine this morning thanks

Just one of those things I feel strongly about as an unnecessary & overused waste of time

DD

 

[Xarra]

I've just started to watermark mine as I'm proud of them - although I save a PSD with the watermark layer. I've got 8 actions that'll put the watermark in one of the 4 corners in either black or white, so it's a 1 second click and it's there - so no time wasted.

 

[Matt Sayle]

I watermark on mine on my website now. I have seen a few threads on various motoring forums where my pictures have been used without my persmission OR any refrennce to me. So if I stick a bloody great chuffing MATT SAYLE PHOTOGRAPHY over it, then I still get reconision for the picture I wont be posting any TPF with a watermark, though!!

 

[specialman]

Matt, hope you don't think I was having a dig at you in any way - some of the comments ont that post just got me thinking.

 

[DiddyDave]

I've just started to watermark mine as I'm proud of them - although I save a PSD with the watermark layer. I've got 8 actions that'll put the watermark in one of the 4 corners in either black or white, so it's a 1 second click and it's there - so no time wasted.

They are often easy to crop out in corners, and also easy to clone out if on a nice plain-ish background too

If you're having them, then for me they have to cut right across the best bit of the image and thus be (practically) impossible to remove well

What I meant by 'waste of time' is that they don't really achieve any level of protection from those that care to steal (like burglar alarms then!)

One of the UK's top Judo photographers sees his watermarked work all over the world he reports, he even saw one that was made into an advert on a billboard once, and that was from an onscreen capture!!! Shocking quality he said it was too

DD

 

[Matt Sayle]

Matt, hope you don't think I was having a dig at you in any way - some of the comments ont that post just got me thinking.

No. not at all mate Was just explaing why I do it was all

 

[specialman]

....'ve got 8 actions that'll put the watermark in one of the 4 corners in either black or white....

I've seen quite a few people doing this but isn't it pointless when, like the shot of the cat above, you could quite easily Photoshop it out?

What about actual embedded data like EXIF - is this not the most secure way of maintaining 'ownership' of the image?

 

[boyfalldown]

One of the UK's top Judo photographers sees his watermarked work all over the world he reports, he even saw one that was made into an advert on a billboard once, and that was from an onscreen capture!!! Shocking quality he said it was too

DD

I've seen somebody go to the effort of a screen grab, download the trial addition of photoshop, clone a watermark out (badly) and then print at **** poor quality.:bang: His wife then went and bought a high quality print of the same image

I now think why bother?

Hugh

 

[natjag]

I watermark most of my images. I've had few used which didn't have my watermark on, so I just let aperture export automatically with it on. I still get £10-20 for some online usage of images (without watermark) so it is in my interest to protect them, at least those that may sell. Some I deliberately put my mark on more than others like these. I got that idea after seeing some another photographer doing a similar thing. I just used my set export preset here. You can see the watermark, if you look. If its a valuable image Watermark it, at least people know that you trying to protect your images.

 

[specialman]

Natjag, but thats the kind of watermarking I'm on about - you can easily clone those out and use them (to an extent).

 

[natjag]

Your right, I know you can. But it may just make them move on to the next image without a watermark. Certainly the second lot of images can easily be removed/cropped, but the first lot, although the main image isn't touched, it's still says this is mine.

On TP I don't think we expect member to steal pictures, but if they are hosted on flickr, then there are many people that may, and I'm sure we've read stories of those that It happeded to.

 

[DiddyDave]

Here's one I DIDN'T DO earlier !!!

It is of course a crop & re-watermark of Natjag's images from his example link in post #17 above

My point here is merely that the original huge watermark can be easily cropped out in many images and still leave something useable and attractive

Indeed, even in this one, you could crop it to a nice head & shoulders if you really wanted a shot of this bonny lass to pretend you shot it. The only way it would have worked properly would have been to cover her face so strongly as to destroy the image

Happy to delete Natjag if you so wish

Oh - and nice shots too btw Catchlight a tad low for my version of perfection

DD

 

[Xarra]

I do it just to say 'this is mine, I did it, other pics with this watermark are also mine' - it's like writing fiction online. You can put 'Copyright Xarra' at the end, but anyone could steal it - less likely with fiction, but even so... Unless you put 'Copyright Xarra' at random intervals throughout the text, which would kind of ruin it!

It's like a signature so it's at least recognised. I'm not that good atm, but it's a 'brand'... And a recognisable brand is good.

And thanks for reminding me to mod my actions tonight to change the EXIF data too at the same time!

 

[Radiohead]

I use a small border at the body which just encroaches over the image like this:

The intention isn't to prevent image theft so much as to use consistent branding across my website, letterheads, business cards and so on.

They then appear online as such:

http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=538

 

[ROFL2K9]

I use a small border at the body which just encroaches over the image like this:

The intention isn't to prevent image theft so much as to use consistent branding across my website, letterheads, business cards and so on.

They then appear online as such:

http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=538

Woah! the boy in the checked shirt polished his lolly off quickly!

 

[Betty]

Bloody hell Dave, you need to stop being so arsey

If you MUST know, that flower shot was used as an example to show my new watermark, I couldnt give a toss if someone nicked that pic, it was purely for example purposes.

Now get off your bloody high horse, I know you mean well, but you're coming across as a total **** lately.

 

[DiddyDave]

Woah! the boy in the checked shirt polished his lolly off quickly!

I was thinking that about the girl far right !!!



Nice shot too

DD

 

[DiddyDave]

Bloody hell Dave, you need to stop being so arsey

If you MUST know, that flower shot was used as an example to show my new watermark, I couldnt give a toss if someone nicked that pic, it was purely for example purposes.

Now get off your bloody high horse, I know you mean well, but you're coming across as a total **** lately.

She me really guys



DD

 

[natjag]

Here's one I DIDN'T DO earlier !!!

It is of course a crop & re-watermark of Natjag's images from his example link in post #17 above

My point here is merely that the original huge watermark can be easily cropped out in many images and still leave something useable and attractive

Indeed, even in this one, you could crop it to a nice head & shoulders if you really wanted a shot of this bonny lass to pretend you shot it. The only way it would have worked properly would have been to cover her face so strongly as to destroy the image

Happy to delete Natjag if you so wish

Oh - and nice shots too btw Catchlight a tad low for my version of perfection

DD

[

My edit box is ticked. Feel free to leave it up. Thanks for your kind comment s BTW.

 

[DiddyDave]

My edit box is ticked. Feel free to leave it up. Thanks for your kind comment s BTW.

Not kind when you say really good images are really good images m8

Kind when you say nice things about crap ones

DD

 

[MikeeB]

I just watermark because Lightroom puts them in for me :shrug: I don't see the point in getting wound up about them.

Sure I commented on Matt's saying that the watermark spoilt it a bit but I don't place mine in the middle of the image anyway. Judging by the amount I've had copied from online galleries I may have to though. I don't like it but it works. At least a watermark in the corner tells the viewer who took it and, if they attempt to remove it, renders the image into an aspect ratio that is mostly unusable.

Think what you want :shrug:

 

[Amp34]

I stick a watermark on all my images, for various reasons (in reverse order):

1. to stop people stealing - not that people necessarily want to, or it's particularly easy to remove, but it will stop the opportunist thief
2. So if my image is lifted from my site (or flickr) and put on another site people can see who did it and my site address. (Happens quite a lot with one image in particular). Think of it as an in built link as most people don't reference.
3. Most important - To show it is mine, just like painters sign their name and date in the corner I have a little signature and web address in the corner. Obviously when I print images I don't have that on there though.

E.g.

 

[Craikeybaby]

It is always a tough one, but when you have had your images lifted from your site and used in ads without even a mention/told it would be used it does send you down the route of watermarking your images.

Also with the amount of people adding images to their facebook profile etc the photographer gets no recognition unless there is a watermark.

Anything that goes in my Flash based portfolio doesn't get watermarked, but anything that goes on Flickr or my blog does. I try to place watermarks so that they don't block the main action, but such that if they were cropped out the image wouldn't work.

 

[mikeward]

TBH i never bother when posting on here and on the hosting site i use there is an option to have the same watermark put on any picture i upload other than that i dont really worry.

 

[famas]

I stick a watermark on all my images, for various reasons (in reverse order):

1. to stop people stealing - not that people necessarily want to, or it's particularly easy to remove, but it will stop the opportunist thief
2. So if my image is lifted from my site (or flickr) and put on another site people can see who did it and my site address. (Happens quite a lot with one image in particular). Think of it as an in built link as most people don't reference.
3. Most important - To show it is mine, just like painters sign their name and date in the corner I have a little signature and web address in the corner. Obviously when I print images I don't have that on there though.

i agree with this 100%

 

[Jason Brown]

I posted because of rights, if your image appears without your consent you can have that image removed or demand payment for the use.