To watermark or not to watermark for online posting of your images

[f16sunshine]

I don't care for them for myself.
If someone wants to steal my image a watermark is not going to stop them unless it's placed like a pageant sash across the image.
A small WM in the bottom corner is easy to simply cover up with a new one.
Keep images small when you post if you care about them being stolen.

All that said finding images that have been watermarked having no bearing on my view of the image or photog.

 

[Pioneer]

I do not use watermarks. I rarely post images but if I do I have added EXIF copyright data and I keep the resolution low.

If the image was done for a client I don't post them. What they do with them is entirely their own business.

 

[MikeAUS]

I want to look at an image - NOT a watermark - so images that have them don't grab my attention for long ...

 

[daveleo]

I think the original question is too simplistic.
For example, I'd guess that 95 / 100 pictures that I post on the internet have no watermark on them - they are general pictures to support some commentary or forum topic.
However I do put my signature at the bottom of every image that I print to hang in a cafe. These simply get downsized for posting on my web page so the signature is on them.

So - do I watermark internet pictures? "No", well . . . "yes", well . . . "It depends".


OR maybe I should have just voted "Other" ?

 

[peterm1]

I sign my work - with a script showing my preferred online "studio" name "Life in Shadows" in the border. But its more an advertisement than an attempt to prevent plagiarism of my work.

 

[George Bonanno]

Original Post #7

Original Post #7

I don't care for them, but after these recent a7 threads -they should be mandatory!

My guess is I missed a few posts since my absence. At least I use my real name like so few others.

Ya know, if a moderator deletes posts freely I feel a PM, an email or a comment is in order to explain what rule was broken.

 

[noisycheese]

Regarding the forum rules, I would like to propose to the moderators that the following changes be made:

1 - Eliminate all rules
2 - Replace them with this one rule: Don't act like an inflamed anal orifice.

This proposed change would also apply to those who are not just acting.

 

[Chris101]

Owww! This thread needs some Prep H now.

 

[presspass]

There's a simpler solution - don't put any images on the internet that you don't want stolen. Yeh, I know, we're in the age where 'information wants to be free' but the creator should have some rights. If in doubt, don't post. I know that means many people won't be able to view wonderful shots, but that's the avenue I take. Sorry about the rant.

 

[gdi]

At least I use my real name like so few others.

Do you get some kind of extra points for that??

 

[Frank Petronio]

Do you get some kind of extra points for that??

If you hope to sell a print or get an assignment then having your full name helps ;-p

 

[Sparrow]

... one may think it pretentious ... but I couldn't possibly comment

 

[noisycheese]

There's a simpler solution - don't put any images on the internet that you don't want stolen. Yeh, I know, we're in the age where 'information wants to be free' but the creator should have some rights. If in doubt, don't post. I know that means many people won't be able to view wonderful shots, but that's the avenue I take. Sorry about the rant.

Therein lies the rub.

The great majority of people today have no grasp of the concepts of honor, integrity or ethics. They have a narcissistic, childish and egocentric worldview: "I want what I want and and I want it now. I don't care if it does belong to you - give it to me for free or I'll just take it."

Technology only makes theft easier for those with no moral code and no integrity, whether it is stealing images off the 'net or identity theft.

Theft is theft - period. There is no justification for it. Putting up with it, condoning it or blaming the victim does not make the problem go away; it only perpetuates and exacerbates the problem.

Thieves are nothing but parasitic lowlifes. That is all they ever will be.

 

[gdi]

If you hope to sell a print or get an assignment then having your full name helps ;-p

That is true! But I think the OP views the use of online pseudonyms negatively.

BTW, here i an example of copyright watermarking - I wonder if it helps sell the photographer's work...

http://www.josephbrunjes.com/JBP/Bike.html

 

[lynnb]

BTW, here i an example of copyright watermarking - I wonder if it helps sell the photographer's work...

http://www.josephbrunjes.com/JBP/Bike.html

Personally I wouldn't buy that font - I guess that's what he's selling.. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

... those particular photos may well sell better with the watermark I feel

 

[Photo_Smith]

Therein lies the rub.

The great majority of people today have no grasp of the concepts of honor, integrity or ethics. They have a narcissistic, childish and egocentric worldview: "I want what I want and and I want it now. I don't care if it does belong to you - give it to me for free or I'll just take it."

Technology only makes theft easier for those with no moral code and no integrity, whether it is stealing images off the 'net or identity theft.

Theft is theft - period. There is no justification for it. Putting up with it, condoning it or blaming the victim does not make the problem go away; it only perpetuates and exacerbates the problem.

Thieves are nothing but parasitic lowlifes. That is all they ever will be.

This is a truth. Music, film (video), images etc all up for grabs gratis. There is a whole generation that no longer buy films or music and have huge collections on hard drives.
The concept of physical ownership is a very 20th century perspective, one not shared by the oncoming generation.
Take Google images–they often do, and why not? its easy and Google is free.

I don't post anything online that I wouldn't mind being stolen. Clients work is just that; it only goes to them and to keep me honest I tape the negative to the back of the print.

 

[hepcat]

If they're snapshots of 'stuff' I typically don't bother. If its more serious work though, it gets a watermark before going on the web.

After having a couple of my images blogged and reblogged in a place that I found quite objectionable, I do watermark many of my images. While it wasn't too terribly difficult to have them removed from the offending blog by the blog owner for copyright violation, it's much less difficult if it's both on the face of the image and in the metadata. And yes, I know both can be easily stripped, cropped, or cloned but presenting the original image to the administrators of the offending site with the watermark and metadata intact strengthens the copyright violation allegation. Further, a little advertising never hurt anyone.

I warehouse many images on Flickr as it's cheap, easy, unlimited storage. I couldn't care less about the social aspects of the site.

My clients get un-watermarked images. The web gets watermarks. I have a logo that I try to size to one corner of the image, and usually about 30-50% opacity.

 

[jpz121]

I am wondering how the august ladies and gents of this forum regard watermarking images for posting online. I am not talking about the big, ugly, obnoxious watermarks plastered across the center of the image in block letters that render viewing and enjoying the image impossible.

The type of watermark I am thinking of using would be in the lower right area of the image - a font and size of professional appearance, as small as is possible while still being visible, legible and tastefully designed.

So that is my question - if a watermark were tastefully designed and did not totally ruin the viewer's ability to view and enjoy the image online, would you use such a watermark on your images that you post online?

Thanks for your input on this!

A Watermark serves as a means of preventing photo theft also it serves as a means of increasing your online popularity as the watermark provides a branding for your photos.

I always watermark all my photos using a watermark logo i created by using a software called Mass Watermark.The software also allows me to add the watermark to multiple images and also resize and add exif info simultaneously.

 

[RichC]

No I don't watermark - I find it intrusive, and so would my target audience.

Instead, I post images no more than about 800 px along the long edge - which is far too small to allow a sharp print larger than 4 inches! If it's being used on the web without my permission, good luck to them - when I encounter anyone doing that, rather than getting on my high horse, I simply ask them for an acknowledgement and a link to my website.

What I don't get is photographers who carelessly allow large images into the wild. If you Google many well-known photographers, you can often find huge files. For example, the Magnum photographer Lise Sarfati, has several, including my favourite image of hers, as a massive 14 MP file - it's the very first image! Granted it's probably not the photographers directly at fault but their agents or a gallery, but all it'd take them is just a few seconds to search and check...

Anyone want any Cartier-Bresson's to hang on their wall? Though I'm sure you wouldn't print them, being respectful of others' work...