Why Watermark!

Dodgykeeper

I sometimes wonder why people put such large and elaborate watermarks on their images, do they believe that ppl will use their images without permission, if you post up a smallish pic (within the rules of the forum) surely this would make printing the pic very diffucult and not very effective.

Are photographers afraid of ppl posting their images on websites!

Another question I have re watermarks is that a lot of the time the poster of the pics apoligises for the size/quality of the watermark! If your not happy with it dont put it there!

Fajitas!

+1

I really don't like watermarks myself. They're taking so much away from the image.

For the resolution I (or most other people here) post their images, noone's going to be getting a decent print from them. The majority of people who do want a print will give you a shout and ask you.

If I see more and more and more photos up for C&C with watermarks taking up the whole image, I might just start giving a critical analysis on their watermark design. Or their choice in typeface. Or maybe just their name.

Tallon

But you can just click on the link to pix.ie for example and have the original size! so posting the small size is irrelavent

People are paranoid, becasue pictures do get used, all the time.

I'm not too picky on people using my pictures for free on sites, as long as they have a link or credit to myself. If I thought the picture was good enought to be used in papers etc, i would probably watermark it

ironclaw

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

Fajitas!

I generally don't put anything past 1200px on the longest end up for public viewing - It's the easiest way around it.

Fajitas!

ironclaw wrote: »

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

And I hope he invoiced them.

Dodgykeeper

Surely there is a way to disable the full size viewing of pics on pix.ie and if there isnt then may I suggest flickr as an alternative.

These websites are designed for ppl to showcase their work and one where the work has to be ruined in order that it wont be stolen is in effictive in my opinion!

Fajitas!

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Surely there is a way to disable the full size viewing of pics on pix.ie and if there isnt then may I suggest flickr as an alternative.

Simple solution is just not upload high resolution files to them.

mervifwdc

Ah! The mighty watermark.

I usually watermark the living hell out of my images I put on the web. And I know that the size means you cannot get a good quality 10*8 print, and you all know that, but the public does NOT know that.

I've seen 800 pixel files downloaded from sites and printed as 6*4's, water mark and all, and placed in peoples houses. They look average to ok, suprisingly enough if you look at them from a distance. And they sure as hell look ok on facebook or any other web site.

I sell small web images for 5 euro, no watermark, so why would I give them away by posting with no watermark? And while only 1 in 100 might be found by someone wanting it, it sets a precedent or standard that is a slippery slope.

I guess the question is, are the images your posting for fun / hobby / amusement, or are they a way to make a living?

The event photos on my site are watermarked with 2 lines of text, and I'll not appologise for it. At event where I do on-site sales, I've seen kids come up to the screens, find their photo, and then take a picture of it with their phone. I'm now thinking of watermarking even the ones people are looking at on MY computers!

The stuff I just do for fun, dont care about so much, so I'll post images of travel, people, wildlife with no watermarks as I cannot see the commercial value in them. If I did, or if I though that I was causing some other photographer to loose out on a sale because I gave away (or allowed anyone at all to steal them) images, then I'd watermark them too.

There are quite a few commercial or wannabe commercial (i.e. making a living from) photographers on here, and the thoughts of loosing sales due to lack of watermarks is usually pretty high on their list of concerns. Definitly the ones selling to the public.

Merv.

Dodgykeeper

ironclaw wrote: »

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

While I find this story very hard to believe, the ppl behind oxygen would have access to loads of pics and would not have to resort to trawling flickr to rob one, if it is true it could be avoided if he did not post them full size!

DotOrg

ironclaw wrote: »

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

same thing happened to me, they took a photo of mine (not taken at oxygen) and used it on the oxygen website. I simply phoned them, let them know and then sent an invoice for use of the image which they then paid

mervifwdc

Fajitas! wrote: »

I generally don't put anything past 1200px on the longest end up for public viewing - It's the easiest way around it.

Actually, thats way too big! The standard size for sending sports images to the newspapers in my area i 1200px on the long side. 400k to 800k sized file. And they will print that up to 1/2 page!

Merv.

Paulw

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

if it is true it could be avoided if he did not post them full size!

Most photos used/robbed/etc tend to not be large high-res images. They are generally just used on websites, so even medium/small images are fine. So, a 600px, 96ppi image is more than fine (and is large) for most websites. Even a screen grabbed image is quality enough to use on a website.

Yeah, I know, there is no full way to protect your images. Don't post them online if you don't want them stolen.

A watermark can help protect your work. I have tried (more and more) to make my watermark less visible, but still there.

Anything of mine that I think has commercial value, I put a watermark on it.

mervifwdc

DotOrg wrote: »

same thing happened to me, they took a photo of mine (not taken at oxygen) and used it on the oxygen website. I simply phoned them, let them know and then sent an invoice for use of the image which they then paid

While that's a success story, what about the amount of times that we dont see where our images were used?

I dont think a lot of people on this and other boards and various camera clubs realise just how good their images are. And therefore how usable they are to many different purposes.

while many companies / organisations may not go out on purpose to rob an image, it does'nt feel like stealing when a designer is up against the wire on a friday night deadline and just copy's an image. Loads of people do it with music - MP3's. It does'nt feel illeagal.

and regular photo viewers standards are lower than ours as photographers, so an image we might think "Ah, that's not going to be used by anyone" might be just the thing someone's looking for!

AnCatDubh

driven by the forum here, I now only load 800px longest side image. Far less taxing on upload resources (limits and bandwidth).

If someone needs to view bigger, by request and arrangement, I will email them (once i receive payment )

Also, i've started dropping a copyright notice into the exif which may trap a lazy thief in the online world (but doesn't stop someone from removing it). I've to integrate this into a proper workflow as yet.

"Tin eye" is interesting technology which should be helpful in this regard in the future - a bit early in the day yet.

smelltheglove

I used to watermark all my images online, two reasons, one being that music wise other bands could see who took the photo, and then the other reason being that there was one person who used to copy a lot of my pictures on bebo. It irritated the hell out of me.

Now I upload small images, basically I create a new folder for the images I want to upload and reduce the size to 40%, on my flickr there is no option for other sizes it is just the medium size that can be see and obviously these too are reduced in size.

There are some watermarks that I do not find damaging to the photo but others that I find pretty useless. I know some people put a border around an image and watermark the border which to me in kind of useless, i tried this myselk once and found an image with my name cropped out.

It is each to their own but I guess over time many people reduce their size of watermark.

Ballyman

smelltheglove wrote: »

I know some people put a border around an image and watermark the border which to me in kind of useless

I'm going to presume this is me you are on about here.

I only do this so I can promote my name. It's not to watermark the images.

If I want to watermark a photo that I think might be useful commercially to someone then I have my name and black lines running through the image. See example below.

smelltheglove

Ballyman wrote: »

I'm going to presume this is me you are on about here.

I only do this so I can promote my name. It's not to watermark the images.

If I want to watermark a photo that I think might be useful commercially to someone then I have my name and black lines running through the image. See example below.

I didnt actually mean you, the person I am talking about isnt on this site and has been using the same one for years and it irritates the hell out of me, in no way nice. Your borders aren't too bad, these ones are just tacky!

kensutz

I've been through this a few times with people stealing images for a football club to use for advertising their matches and websites. There is a need for me to watermark 99% of my images but recently I don't bother uploading them to any websites or forums at all.

Valentia

What I find funny is people watermarking crap photos.

Paulw

Valentia wrote: »

What I find funny is people watermarking crap photos.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. :rolleyes: Photography is very subjective.

Valentia

Paulw wrote: »

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. :rolleyes: Photography is very subjective.

Obviously I'm well aware of that. No. I'm talking about stuff that is genuine crap. There is plenty about. It's more the ego thing that annoys me TBH. It doesn't just happen in photography of course.

In fairness this forum doesn't suffer from it to any large extent.

Anouilh

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I sometimes wonder why people put such large and elaborate watermarks on their images, do they believe that ppl will use their images without permission, if you post up a smallish pic (within the rules of the forum) surely this would make printing the pic very diffucult and not very effective.

Are photographers afraid of ppl posting their images on websites!

Another question I have re watermarks is that a lot of the time the poster of the pics apoligises for the size/quality of the watermark! If your not happy with it dont put it there!

I have started watermarking photos because of the increasing number of "orphan" works that are about to flood the Internet.

I don't think it's a great problem.

I have sent photos over the net to friends and apologised for the watermark, explaining why it was there.

I found a nice program, Watermark Express, that allows for transparence and size to be controlled, so chosing a colour that suits each photo is possible.

And, in passing, I found this useful site that posts about lost cameras and orphan photos:

http://ifoundyourcamera.blogspot.com/

KarmaGarda

I've had a photo taken off my flickr and used without permission. I let them away with it, but looking back now I should have probably invoiced the buggers. It's hard to know what to do. I suppose there's 2 ways of looking at this:

If I had watermarked that image, they would probably have just gone and taken someone elses instead.

On the other hand, If you don't watermark it, and you find it has been used then you can invoice them. I didn't, but because of it I've had links to my flickr stream posted on a couple of other related sites. Hasn't proven profitable yet, but you never know, someday maybe!

It depends how you look at it. Do watermarks really generate more income for you? Or does it just stop people using your photos without permission.

KarmaGarda

Just for reference, this is the site that took it:

http://www.himalmag.com/283000-displaced_nw3108.html

At least I forced them to give me recognition on the site anyway!

charybdis

I've spoken before about this and have strong opinions about it [see signature].

While I somewhat understand watermarking when offering images for sale or as stock photography, I find it somewhat offensive that people readily offer up watermarked images for review (or C&C) in places such as this. If you are asking people to allocate some of their time and attention to looking at, or offering advice on, your work you could at least do them the courtesy of presenting it in a humble and inoffensive manner; to do otherwise is discourteous.

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started watermarking photos because of the increasing number of "orphan" works that are about to flood the Internet.

url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Act"]Citation Needed[/url

smelltheglove

When it comes to the likes of Paul and Ken whose work is based upon something that would be of interest to lots of people, i.e. players, players friends, clubs, papers etc I think a watermark may be needed, also with Ballymans race above as shown, sometimes with music, which I do myself since there are many people who would like to steal, i.e. fans and friends and family but when it comes to images such as weddings, landscapes, architecture (spelling?) or inanimate objects, I do not see the need, I used to watermark everything but realised it did affect my images negatively and it was not required to the majority of my work.

Valentia

I have had a number of photos stolen too. Tineye is great for finding them on the web. If I don't want anything stolen I don't upload it. Simple as that. I have also sold a few, some for decent money even though if that person/company wanted to they could have robbed them.

Anyone that wants to rob them are unlikely to pay for them anyway.

BTW I have always followed up on any company using my stuff. I don't mind people blogging it with a link back to the original.

My stuff is clearly copyrighted but I'm only interested in chasing up cowboys and thieving capitalists

My bottom line is to have my stuff on view. Making a few bob is secondary. Maybe An Bord Snip will change that though and my whole perspective would change if it was my livelyhood.

KarmaGarda

charybdis wrote: »

I've spoken before about this and have strong opinions about it [see signature].

While I somewhat understand watermarking when offering images for sale or as stock photography, I find it somewhat offensive that people readily offer up watermarked images for review (or C&C) in places such as this. If you are asking people to allocate some of their time and attention to looking at, or offering advice on, your work you could at least do them the courtesy of presenting it in a humble and inoffensive manner; to do otherwise is discourteous.



URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Act"]Citation Needed[/URL

Not sure I agree with this 100%. A couple of reasons:

Pictures don't just get stolen from flickr, they get nicked off forums too. You post it on a public forum like this with tonnes of members and you're just as liable to get your picture robbed.

Also, if the watermark isn't intrusive I don't see how it's presented in an offensive manner. (Even if it is intrusively watermarked I don't see why it could be considered offensive!) My personal opinion is that if you don't like to C&C a watermarked image then don't. If it doesn't bother you offer your C&C.

This is just my opinion. As I mentioned, I don't watermark my photos, but I do see reason why others do. I don't get why other people can get so offended. Just let them fire ahead and watermark to their hearts content, doing so shouldn't bother anyone else. (Apart from the cowboys who may have had notions on stealin it :pac:)

(Edit: just to clarify - I still see reasons why they would offer watermarked images for CC/Advice too)

Fenster

I watermark client photos in order to ensure that when they or their family steal them for Facebook or MySpace, you'll see my name on it.

Dodgykeeper

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started watermarking photos because of the increasing number of "orphan" works that are about to flood the Internet.

I don't think it's a great problem.

What do you mean by this?

bigjoe

I watermark my work for 2 reasons. I have had people selling my work and when it was enlarged it made the pictures look like very poor quality. I also want to let people know where to contact me for sales reasons.
I take pictures of Motorcycle racing and any money I get for selling my pictures is put back into the sport through medical support.
Why should anyone make money from my work.

sasar

I think you should be happy if your image gets 'stolen' as it means it is worth it.

Paulw

sasar wrote: »

I think you should be happy if your image gets 'stolen' as it means it is worth it.

What a load of crap. Would you be of the same opinion if your car or camera was stolen?

No one should be stealing your work, and you have every right to protect it, even with a watermark.

PCPhoto

PaulW ...sasar is just trolling.

Tallon

Paulw wrote: »

What a load of crap. Would you be of the same opinion if your car or camera was stolen?

No one should be stealing your work, and you have every right to protect it, even with a watermark.

PCPhoto wrote: »

PaulW ...sasar is just trolling.

Jeez, relax. I'm pretty sure he was kidding

sasar

Paulw wrote: »

What a load of crap. Would you be of the same opinion if your car or camera was stolen?

No one should be stealing your work, and you have every right to protect it, even with a watermark.

Paul, I watermark my camera, so I'm not scared
I've seen some of my photos being used without my permission, I don't make a big fuss about it. Don't know, it doesn't really bother me tbh.

However I do understand the people who are making living out of it. For me it's just a hobby.

AnimalRights

I'd like to use a small sig for my gig shots but dunno how in LR 2.

DK is also a smoker.

Hugh_C

smelltheglove wrote: »

but when it comes to images such as weddings, landscapes, architecture (spelling?) or inanimate objects, I do not see the need

I would disagree almost completely with this, who gives a toss about some shoddy band, but get yer hands off my beautiful landscapes.

I have no interest in photographing landscapes, nature or anything along those lines ...

think I read that on your site ...

:eek:

smelltheglove

On my blog, no I dont have any ineterest for it, I do it the odd time and I LOVE landscape pictures but it just doesnt make me want to take out the camera and shoot a seaside, many people would know I have great respect for those who do landscapes and do the well, my eye just doesnt turn that way;)

kensutz

smelltheglove wrote: »

When it comes to the likes of Paul and Ken whose work is based upon something that would be of interest to lots of people, i.e. players, players friends, clubs, papers etc I think a watermark may be needed, also with Ballymans race above as shown, sometimes with music, which I do myself since there are many people who would like to steal, i.e. fans and friends and family but when it comes to images such as weddings, landscapes, architecture (spelling?) or inanimate objects, I do not see the need, I used to watermark everything but realised it did affect my images negatively and it was not required to the majority of my work.

Hit the nail on the head. I cover quite a lot of sports and it's unreal the amount of people who will try and steal an image no matter what size it is, to chop it up and make wallpapers or for people to stick up on their social media sites. Since the watermark has appeared, the amount of incidences have decreased so I'm happy.

mikeanywhere

For this exact reason

Bluefoam

Case in point was a blogger who posted a picture of the Luas crash immediatley after it happened yesterday afternoon.

10 mins later the same photo was on the RTE news website - for commercial gain. I wonder if the blogger got credit or payment - I doubt it...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darragh/3926211414/

Paulw

Bluefoam wrote: »

10 mins later the same photo was on the RTE news website - for commercial gain. I wonder if the blogger got credit or payment - I doubt it...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darragh/3926211414/

Darragh posts here from time to time, so may update if he was paid or not. In this case, I doubt RTE just took the image (but I may be wrong).

Anouilh

Originally Posted by Anouilh View Post
I have started watermarking photos because of the increasing number of "orphan" works that are about to flood the Internet.

I don't think it's a great problem.

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

From a practical point of view, if the owner of a photograph is not traceable, it generates a lot of boring work for professionals and editors working in publishing. Given the astonishing growth of digital media, orphan works are about to become a real nuisance.

Putting a watermark on a photo always seemed an unsightly option, but if you think that a photo sent as a gift to a friend will probably get sent round to other friends for viewing, the original owner will, in quite a short time, be difficult to trace. Some photographers put their blog address on a photo, a clever way of helping viewers to find new work.

This is not a new problem:


http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=6590

In the light of genuine problems like fiscal insecurity or epidemics, whether to watermark or not seems simply a question of personal taste.

Copyright is assured regardless of whether or not one adds this additional reminder... if the original owner can be traced, of course.

Looking at "fair use" can also make the subject clearer.

Pacha

I often watermark pictures that I put online.
I was wondering whether to watermark the pictures I put up on here recently.
I agree with a lot of what's been said so far.
A watermark can ruin a picture.
I tend to make mine 600 or 700 max anyway so too small to print (but they could still be used online).
And maybe they're all s***e so no one would want to steal them anyway.





I know they're not by the way

Anouilh

I haven't tried Picnik, but it might be worth a look:

http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/protect-flickr-images-with-text-watermarks/1996/

As for the fear of theft, I seem to have headed off into Jackson Pollock territory and anybody who would take precious time out of their lives to "borrow" my photos would probably deserve to be more pitied than feared...




The watermark has become part of the jumbled mass of mossy twigs, which is one way of solving the problem.

Pacha

Anouilh wrote: »

The watermark has become part of the jumbled mass of mossy twigs, which is one way of solving the problem.

I try and do that too.
For one thing it's not so noticeable and for another, harder to repair, (if anyone was going to bother)

Anouilh

It's worth mentioning that Watermark Express allows one to change the angle and colour of a watermark very quickly. Running the watermark along a branch or on a vertical detail in a building could integrate the final effect.

From now on I'll look out for successful use of watermarks. Good thread.

.Longshanks.

I've recently spotted thru flickr that a few of my photos are appearing on blogs and twitter etc but they are always from sites that i need to register to access so can't see who is robbing / linking to them
This doesn't bother me, but i generally now only upload pics that are 800px on the longest side and add my name to them. No real reason other than its my photo and you wouldn't release any other form of media free to the www without putting your name to it....

Sometimes try to integrate my sig into the photo like the below (uploaded before started using my new 800px rule)