This week I posted my splash photograph on both 365 and my Facebook account. A friend, who is a very experienced photographer, suggested I should remove the FB copy due to the risk of theft and to resize the 365 copy, which I've done, but now the quality is not so good and I was so proud of the original.
Photography is my hobby and I love it and I didn't want nasty stuff like theft to invade my 'me time creativity' :
There are so many stunning photos on 365 and I am not just talking PP and TT and the majority of them don't carry a watermark, are we just all too trusting?
honestly there is very little you can do to prevent photo theft if you put your photos online. Keep the original file preferably raw file on your computer to prove the image is yours if it ever comes to that. On some of my more popular photos I do a google image search every once in a while just to see where my image is and who is using it. Water marks can be cropped out or cloned out. You can register your images with the copyright office to offer you some more legal protection and the ability to sue for punitive damages.
I pretty much second what Jake ( @digitalrogue ) said; I think it's rather difficult to truly protect your images once they're dropped into the world-wide web. I also conduct frequent google image searches on certain images; and many are being used by out-of-country poster sites and such. I pretty much shoot as a hobby, so I don't mind too much, though if I discover mass abuse I will report it (most of my better images are licensed through Getty, so I just inform them). If I relied on photography for an income though, it would be an entirely different story :)
Here is a more popular image that sees a lot of "grey-market" action (my puppy Bennett bounding through the garden) :
@grizzlysghost Aaron, I can't believe how many times Bennett has been used!
Thank you for your response, I guess I am going to have to look at it as flattery if my shot is 'stolen' otherwise it is going to take all the fun away from my hobby
@digitalrogue Thanks Jake, I figured watermarks were pretty much useless. I will keep the RAWs and as I mentioned to Aaron I will turn a negative to a positive and look on it as a form of flattery :)
Photo theft like music theft happens. For most people, the lost of the income is so minor that the value of having your work validated from the "theft" is likely worth more. If they steal your image enough times, maybe the honest one will come forth and commission you.
I think if your image is good enough to be stolen, then you have the raw files so you can prove its yours so don't worry too much - if you don't want it stolen don't put it in the public domain its quite that simple
watermarks are useless and only ID you if you are a serious pro, other than that they're distracting and spoil the image anyway, but people tend to put them in corners which can be cropped off easily. you'll never win this battle of wills (theft)
how do I be polite...in experience most people that worry about photo theft, their images aren't of theft calibre anyway and images that are, the authors know their rights and processes of action anyway.
personally if my image is good enough to be lifted, its a compliment, but if you make money out of it i'll come after you with a solicitor....but that's never going to happen my work isn't good enough
@catwhiskers Google image search, you can drag and drop your photo. At least that's how I would do it. Until now havn't really given it much thought since I only do this as a hobby, and don't feel my images are good enough to have them get stollen.
@kmrtn6 Thank you for all your knowledge, I think I am just going to roll with it and if I get an image stolen be grateful that it was good enough LOL!
Make sure that you keep the original with EXIF data. AT least you might be able to prove ownership (unless people know how to strip the EXIF out of it. You might find that your camera allows you to add a copyright message as part of the EXIF. Just as an aside, did you know that you can drag and drop an image onto the search bar of Google images?
You can also have your name added to the EXIF info. I just discovered this while perusing my my camera manual. My Nikon D200 is about 10 years old so am sure the newer ones offer same. I entered this through the camera menu and it displays along with other info with the EXIF info. As long as you keep the raw file and have a spectacular image stolen, you can prove you were the "shooter".
I'm going to just put this out there: if you post your picture, and someone uses it, with resources like Google Images search and TinEye, it's only a matter of time before you'll find out.
You own the rights to your image, and anyone who infringes on those rights owes you something. Maybe simply an attribution? Some money? I mean, depends on what they're doing with it, who's doing the infringing, and what your business model is (if any).
If they're making a calendar, ask for a cut! Find your image on a t-shirt? Find out which deep-pocket company is selling it, and ask for compensation. I see people putting their watermark on images, and it makes them look a little cheesy. EXIF/IPTC metadata works for me, is easy searchable, and again, even if you strip the metadata, the image itself will eventually be found.
For me, I release all of my images into the Creative Commons license (non-commercial, share-alike, attribution) because I -want- people to use my images for non-commercial purposes as long as they play nice, and give me an attribution. I don't necessarily want to be bothered with answering requests for free usage on blogs, but I love the free advertisement, so that works out for me.
The nice thing about this is that your images are out there, and can be used in fairly high-profile non-commercial situations, and this can lead to automatic and massive exposure. I've sold several of my images due to this effect. Hell, one of my images has been seen over six million times (free, CC use), and is now being published in a book (commercial), and I didn't have to do any leg-work.
This happens all the time, and I like to think that if you send positive energy (pictures and words) into the Universe, the Universe will randomly send you back some positive, unexpected fun.
I know it sounds crispy-granola, but the whole purpose of sharing our images on-line is to gain exposure, right? To share. To be seen. To rise above. Another one of my images sold to Madison Avenue and was played in heavy rotation on PBS - all because of Creative Commons licensing.
So...for me, sharing is natural, as long as someone's not making any money or consideration off of my work. And if they are making money, they should be sharing.
Oh, and as far as posting images, I'm a big fan of posting small-sized images (750x500), and let people ask for larger sizes for specific purposes. If you post images larger than 750x500, you're asking for commercial infringement. It's just too easy to save the file and use it. Plus, if you post the original image, it's like you're sharing the negatives, and that's just not safe. Always crop smaller, so you have the largest, original file, and no one else (except perhaps someone who's paying you for exclusive rights) has the RAW/TIFF/original JPEG "negative" files. 750x500 or maybe slightly larger, is just about enough for a 4x6 print. Anything else just looks bad.
@amarand hi Amarand, thank you so much for such a comprehensive response :) You're right, I do want my good shots to 'travel' and possibly be picked up and used within reason, it would give me such a buzz. I will take your advice on the crop size, very useful guide, as I know I ruined my splash shot quality going right down then back up with the sizing on Picmonkey. I'm so lucky it is still getting some favs. Time for me to get streetwise and go back to playing with cameras, water and anything else a bit different ;-)
Sarah, I'm very much of the opinion you express in this comment. Photography is my hobby and my great pleasure and, in a way, if somebody steals an image of mine online, I'll be flattered for me and a bit sorry for them. Don't want to spend my time worrying about possible negative stuff. I re-size images to 1280 (on Windows Gallery) so as to upload faster.
I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I have been recommended Digimarc ( http://www.digimarc.com/ ) as a good way of tracing/protecting images. Going to look into it today.
@fearinnocent If you use Lightroom, Bridge or Photoshop they all allow you to apply EXIF/IPTC metadata after the fact, which is nice. But each camera is different if you wanted to apply those in-camera. It's usually best to apply metadata in batchest as a part of your ingest/import workflow so you have complete control. Don't forget that almost every bit of image metadata can be easily stripped by an even mildly-savvy thief.
@sgtpepper Digimarc is an awesomely effective (challenging to strip) solution that seems terribly expensive, especially in light of Google Images and TinEye searches, which are free.
@quietpurplehaze Oh! And my 750x500 size is somewhat arbitrary. I know some folks like to share larger image sizes like 1024 or 1280 on the long side. Larger images mean better visibility but also make for larger prints on the other end. I'm sure there's a balance.
@susanalena Hi Susan...I have a Nikon D5000. After reading what you said about being able to put your name into the EXIF info, I got out my manual and searched my cameras settings but could find a way to do it. Can you tell me under what camera settings you are able to do this? Thanks!!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here is a more popular image that sees a lot of "grey-market" action (my puppy Bennett bounding through the garden) :
Bennett
Thank you for your response, I guess I am going to have to look at it as flattery if my shot is 'stolen' otherwise it is going to take all the fun away from my hobby
watermarks are useless and only ID you if you are a serious pro, other than that they're distracting and spoil the image anyway, but people tend to put them in corners which can be cropped off easily. you'll never win this battle of wills (theft)
how do I be polite...in experience most people that worry about photo theft, their images aren't of theft calibre anyway and images that are, the authors know their rights and processes of action anyway.
personally if my image is good enough to be lifted, its a compliment, but if you make money out of it i'll come after you with a solicitor....but that's never going to happen my work isn't good enough
You own the rights to your image, and anyone who infringes on those rights owes you something. Maybe simply an attribution? Some money? I mean, depends on what they're doing with it, who's doing the infringing, and what your business model is (if any).
If they're making a calendar, ask for a cut! Find your image on a t-shirt? Find out which deep-pocket company is selling it, and ask for compensation. I see people putting their watermark on images, and it makes them look a little cheesy. EXIF/IPTC metadata works for me, is easy searchable, and again, even if you strip the metadata, the image itself will eventually be found.
For me, I release all of my images into the Creative Commons license (non-commercial, share-alike, attribution) because I -want- people to use my images for non-commercial purposes as long as they play nice, and give me an attribution. I don't necessarily want to be bothered with answering requests for free usage on blogs, but I love the free advertisement, so that works out for me.
The nice thing about this is that your images are out there, and can be used in fairly high-profile non-commercial situations, and this can lead to automatic and massive exposure. I've sold several of my images due to this effect. Hell, one of my images has been seen over six million times (free, CC use), and is now being published in a book (commercial), and I didn't have to do any leg-work.
This happens all the time, and I like to think that if you send positive energy (pictures and words) into the Universe, the Universe will randomly send you back some positive, unexpected fun.
I know it sounds crispy-granola, but the whole purpose of sharing our images on-line is to gain exposure, right? To share. To be seen. To rise above. Another one of my images sold to Madison Avenue and was played in heavy rotation on PBS - all because of Creative Commons licensing.
So...for me, sharing is natural, as long as someone's not making any money or consideration off of my work. And if they are making money, they should be sharing.
Easy peasy, isn't it?
Have a great day :)
Sarah, I'm very much of the opinion you express in this comment. Photography is my hobby and my great pleasure and, in a way, if somebody steals an image of mine online, I'll be flattered for me and a bit sorry for them. Don't want to spend my time worrying about possible negative stuff. I re-size images to 1280 (on Windows Gallery) so as to upload faster.