Opinions on watermarking

[jc1350]

My response is from the US. Other countries have different laws, of course.

If you are a professional and/or want to retain control, you need to register the photos with the the US copyright office. If I recall it is $55/per registration (a registration can include one or more photos - it's per "interaction," not per item).

Watermarking seems fairly pointless to me.

They can be cropped out and easily removed.

Usually where ever my photos are there are some call to actions saying who I am.

Also, I have nothing really to gain from having a watermark on my shots and I feel that they just end up getting in the way of my shot!

I saw an episode of The Grid from Scott Kelby's KelbyOne media group that was all about copyright. The lawyers said that the watermark does help if you go after someone because it helps prove intent to violate the copyright if they remove the watermark.

The episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTHaw21XlOA

The watermark does not need to be "in your face." In fact, for aesthetics, it's better to have a small one (that artsy side of displaying in the public).

 

[Designer Dale]

Didn't occur to me to check the file's EXIF data. Perhaps if tineye gave no results, I would eventually think of that option. I only think of exif when I want to know the technical specs of the shot, that it can contain copyright info is just not ingrained in me for some reason.

As for crediting, the original image is a hyperlink to the author's website where this photo is displayed. I suppose that was too subtle Just goes to show that out of dozens of ways of connecting an image to a photographer, not all are obvious for all viewers

What shows up in a photo's EXIF data depends on what the author put there in editing. A lot of the images here on POTD have only minimal image size in the EXIF. Here is the PhotoShop Image Info from a professional photo of Christian Slater. All of it shows up in the EXIF when it's published on the Web.

Dale

 

[-hh]

FWIW, when using the "Save for Web" feature in Photoshop, it has a couple of different options regarding what amount of Metadata to include:

• None
• "Copyright"
• "Copyright & Contact Info"
• "All Except Camera Info"
• All

-hh

 

[monokakata]

Has anybody used Digimarc?

The ability to track where your images have gone is interesting to me.

 

[Miltz]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to hear your opinions on watermarking.

- Do you watermark all your pictures?
- Why do you watermark or why don't you?

I personally used to watermark when I first started but always bothered me to do so so completely stopped now. I do however ask people to credit me when using my photos. I haven't been victim of theft yet.

Here is a very bad example lol

Image

Watermarks are probably one of the worst things you can do to distract and bring down a photograph. They can easily be removed. Just post low resolution images so they have no real value and can't be used to print or anything else. Logo's that are very small are okay in the corner sometimes, so the viewer knows you're signature logo etc... Ironically most of the images I see with bad watermarks are also bad photographs so it doesn't matter.

 

[aerok]

Watermarks are probably one of the worst things you can do to distract and bring down a photograph. They can easily be removed. Just post low resolution images so they have no real value and can't be used to print or anything else. Logo's that are very small are okay in the corner sometimes, so the viewer knows you're signature logo etc... Ironically most of the images I see with bad watermarks are also bad photographs so it doesn't matter.

Also reminds me of pictures from http://www.youarenotaphotographer.com

 

[FieldingMellish]

Watermarks are probably one of the worst things you can do to distract and bring down a photograph. They can easily be removed. Just post low resolution images so they have no real value and can't be used to print or anything else. Logo's that are very small are okay in the corner sometimes, so the viewer knows you're signature logo etc... Ironically most of the images I see with bad watermarks are also bad photographs so it doesn't matter.

I take it you're down on watermarks?

 

[Celebmir]

I shoot with Nikon and don't know if it's possible on other brands but it would surprise me if they lack the function.

I setup copyright information and contact information on the camera and it will be inserted directly in EXIF when the picture is taken.

 

[The Bad Guy]

You're not a real photographer if you don't have an obnoxious watermark on your photos. Particularly on social media.

 

[edjs]

What shows up in a photo's EXIF data depends on what the author put there in editing.

It can also depend on where one posts the photo. Facebook, for example, strips all EXIF data out.

 

[Designer Dale]

It can also depend on where one posts the photo. Facebook, for example, strips all EXIF data out.

I don't do FB so I don't know the TOS, but it seems to me that they can't legally do that. They would be effectivly removing the copyright. The photographer put it there for a reason and the photo is his/hers, not MZs.

Dale

 

[FieldingMellish]

Maybe Facebook terms of service is 1.) we can strip out all exif data. 2.) Photos without exif data becomes our property for any use we deem fit.

 

[acearchie]

I think another point to mention is that if someone does steal your photo and you try to claim for compensation all that will happen is that they will take down the photo and never hear from them again.

I've had my photos used all over the place and never received a penny. Chasing would result in nothing other than wasted time.

 

[jc1350]

I don't do FB so I don't know the TOS, but it seems to me that they can't legally do that. They would be effectivly removing the copyright. The photographer put it there for a reason and the photo is his/hers, not MZs.

Dale

Watch the video in the link I have in post 26. The lawyers touched on this as well. There are all kinds of caveats to copyright law. It's not as clear-cut as most people think.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I always watermark my photos unobtrusively when I'm using them for my own promotional purposes (obviously it's different with published images). The watermark at least emphasizes my desire for protection--even if that protection is actually fairly minimal, anyone seeing the watermark will know that I care about my name being attached to my work. But more importantly, perhaps, the watermark gives interested viewers the information they need to find my website without them having to dig into exif info to get it (few people even know how to do that and even fewer will take the trouble to do it).

 

[aerok]

I always watermark my photos unobtrusively when I'm using them for my own promotional purposes (obviously it's different with published images). The watermark at least emphasizes my desire for protection--even if that protection is actually fairly minimal, anyone seeing the watermark will know that I care about my name being attached to my work. But more importantly, perhaps, the watermark gives interested viewers the information they need to find my website without them having to dig into exif info to get it (few people even know how to do that and even fewer will take the trouble to do it).

I like your watermark, very subtle and elegant. The same cannot be said for most...

 

[Phrasikleia]

I like your watermark, very subtle and elegant. The same cannot be said for most...

Thank you, aerok! Yeah, it can be tough to fit in a watermark without it detracting from the image. My own watermarks have been getting smaller and smaller over the years, but I prefer to include them, even if they can be easily removed by unsavory individuals.

 

[-hh]

Watermarks are probably one of the worst things you can do to distract and bring down a photograph. They can easily be removed. Just post low resolution images so they have no real value and can't be used to print or anything else...

Except ... that if the resolution is set too low, it looks like garbage on a PC screen (eg, your own webpage), and as you raise its resolution up to where it is acceptable to view on your own webpage, it then also becomes 'good enough' resolution for anyone who wants to grab a copy for use on their own webpage.

As such, the "Use Low Rez" advice needs to be caveated with observing that it will only be a speed bump from someone who wants your image to make a fine quality 300dpi image in a book - - and even then, that's assuming no resizing: a large 1280 x 1024 (SXGA desktop) image will also make for a 3"x4" print at 300dpi, so if one goes this route, one needs to keep the online stuff both low rez and also be non-screen-filling.

-hh