i have found watermarks annoying, they take away from the image in print and online. yes, they can be taken, but that is always a risk. if a client buys a print i sign the bottom corner if it is a stock image. if it is of a person or group i stamp the back. you will get all kiinds of thoughts on this one.
I never watermark. and i hate when i see watermarks on images because A. it's distracting. and B. it reeks of the need to "brand" yourself, as if in a few months time everyone will see a photo and go "OMFG it was shot by xxxx, this must be great!".
Alternatively, C. you're paranoid about someone stealing your photo, which is somewhat overkill IMO. there's so many millions of photos being uploaded everyday and hundreds of free stock photo sites around. The risk is negligible for the average photography enthusiast. There are also other ways to prove ownership, putting on a visible watermark is like branding your child across the forehead.
I don't water mark either because it's quite annoying and like Chris said there is always the risk of of a photo being taken.. Honestly someone could just remove the watermark if they really wanted and were determind.. I think watermarks take away from the pictures. If I ever tag my pictures it will probably be in small print in a corner..
@scatochef Here, here. I was just discussing with someone else the other day - 90% of watermarks are zap-able with about 30 seconds worth of work in Photoshop, anyway, so I'm not sure what good it is.
Having said that, I have seen some very tasteful watermarks on here. @sdpace 's is a good example - it's subtle, unobtrusive, and doesn't distract from the image at hand:
I also noticed today that @davetom 's is pretty subtle and nondistracting:
I water mark my online shots, well basically because I was told I should. But I was thinking about maybe trying to sell some prints at a craft show over the summer but really have no clue if they should be marked or signed and how much to charge for a print?? So I do appreciate any advice because I would like to give it a try at least once and see what happens.
I watermark online pics like in my project. Any images I sell are "PROOF" watermarked online but are not printed with a watermark ever. I think that's a bit too pretentious and a clear sign of being a fauxtaug.
I haven't sold any photos yet, but I don't think I would watermark a photo I sold. I do, however, watermark my photos posted online. I don't do this to protect them necessarily, instead it is to give viewers enough information to find more of my work if they choose to and to connect via social media. I deliberately worked to find a watermark that I felt was unobtrusive and did not take away from the photo. Some may agree, some may not . . .
if you are selling actual prints, i think it's best to sign them by hand. That ups the value of them too imo. online, i think it's okay to watermark, i don't prefer it but to each their own. i've seen some nice watermarks and i've seen some that made me really wish they weren't there!
I just started trying out some watermarks and it is kind of annoying bc some images, you cant see the watermark anyways. I am new at learning all this, so I dont know how to move it around on each photo. I mass process mine through photoshop, if they are supposed to be uploaded to my school site. They suggested we do this, but im still deciding if it like it or not. My friend who is a photographer does limited edition prints and he signs them on the bottom right but its very discreet, like mentioned above.
seems really weird, Ive never heard of ansel adams putting water marks on his photos. i assume he did sign the back of his prints. I water mark mostly, ... im not the most organized person and if i copied someones picture on my downloads folder i would rename it by the photographers name since media sites dont require water marks on those pictures. Then there are really smart photographers who have web pages were the images are protected and mouse right click copy is not available when viewing, so you dont see water marks in those cases. I guess the reason i mostly water mark my images is since i am uploading them on the web people will know its me in the future should they have copied onto their own hard drive. but who does that? And in the case someone "steals" your image that you even water marked (just to subtle) then how do you prove that its yours??? did u hear about the photo of steve jobs inside an apple? ahh its too vague, but there should be a thread on copyright laws, most countries are changing copyright laws as we speak, in canada we have C-11 and they want to put a digital lock on digital media, 1. so you can unlock the media and transfer to usb, mp3, car stereo, lcd slide show viewer, etc.... and with that you can also give permission so when on the web passwords can open media sources for streaming and downloading. Personally I have heard of a few copyright disputes in the past few months that are really up to the judge in the end .... do you need a lawyer to watermark an image? its really very confusing, like how about model release forms? if im not a pro and im not publishing and im keeping the photos private and too myself am i obligated to watermark these photos in case they get misplaced or wrongfully distributed ... so people know who has ownership? well I guess i should wrap it up, but i will repeat i do watermark, mostly. and I would never print a photo i watermarked, not cool, dude people will be hanging the image in a frame on the wall, it will be discussed in confidence, people will ask "who took this photo?", they will reply "mr/mrs so and so" and they will remember its called word of mouth advertising, and its very useful.
@eryck People can't right-click on my site, yet they still steal them. There is no way possible to show a picture on the web and make it impossible to steal. In regards to Adams - he didn't watermark, probably because he didn't have internet galleries from which people could steal his images.
You prove an image is yours either by registering it (costly, but effective), or by keeping the raw image files so you can later prove you took it. If you watermark, and someone removes the watermark, it goes a long way to proving their intent (to steal).
Copyright law is not so confusing, even though it is different in different countries. Essentially, the photographer owns the image Copyright. Always, with the exception of when the photographer is employed by (for example) a studio - then the studio owns the Copyright. When a client is allowed to use an image, or print it whenever they want, that is called licensing. The photographer (or studio) still owns the Copyright. Contracts can be drawn up that change how images can be used by clients and by Copyright holders, but that does not change the fact of Copyright ownership. I'm speaking generally, of course - not offering legal advice here.
@jinximages excellent information, thank you for sharing. Ive never sold a print but hope to start some marketing techniques this year. Knowing more about ownership is valuable information to me.
Is someone wants to steal your image they will, watermark or not. If they can't right click and "save image as" they can always maximize the image and take a screen shot... And removing watermarks can be done with just a bit of work if you have the talent and software. There are ways to do whatever. I've been putting my name on my pics lately for no reason other then it's like signing your homework. I'm not selling them. And with all the people out there with digital cameras, photo sites and some type of photo altering software, no one is really buying them either. I'm not trying to belittle photography and people who are amazing at it, but I just don't hold too much in it. Then again, right now I'm really tired and cranky... O_o
I watermark out of habit. I've been on deviantART for two years and have seen so many stolen images. One of them recently was a Crayola colour drip photo by A guy named Eric on flickr. He did the photo two years ago for a contest for Panasoni and won, no watermark, though. A couple of week ago, someone stole the image and uploaded it to a new deviantART account. And despite all of the reports and comments with links to the original, a deviantART Staff Member posted it to tumblr and over 100,00 people reblogged it with the thief getting all the credit in each and every one. Now I'm no contest winner, but a watermark has been proven to scare people off when they do that, because they can easily trace it back to the original artist and they're usually too lazy or inexperienced enough to know how to remove it (which is why they steal works on the first place). So I just keep my mark in the lower corner, as out of the way as possible, and I make it transparent so it kind of blends in. I also feel like it helps me fill in negative space, too. A work of mine feels incomplete if there's nothing there to say, "It's mine, I did this, and I'm proud to display it as my own, no matter what anyone else may think."
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Alternatively, C. you're paranoid about someone stealing your photo, which is somewhat overkill IMO. there's so many millions of photos being uploaded everyday and hundreds of free stock photo sites around. The risk is negligible for the average photography enthusiast. There are also other ways to prove ownership, putting on a visible watermark is like branding your child across the forehead.
Having said that, I have seen some very tasteful watermarks on here. @sdpace 's is a good example - it's subtle, unobtrusive, and doesn't distract from the image at hand:
I also noticed today that @davetom 's is pretty subtle and nondistracting:
You prove an image is yours either by registering it (costly, but effective), or by keeping the raw image files so you can later prove you took it. If you watermark, and someone removes the watermark, it goes a long way to proving their intent (to steal).
Copyright law is not so confusing, even though it is different in different countries. Essentially, the photographer owns the image Copyright. Always, with the exception of when the photographer is employed by (for example) a studio - then the studio owns the Copyright. When a client is allowed to use an image, or print it whenever they want, that is called licensing. The photographer (or studio) still owns the Copyright. Contracts can be drawn up that change how images can be used by clients and by Copyright holders, but that does not change the fact of Copyright ownership. I'm speaking generally, of course - not offering legal advice here.