Watermarking your images
Yay or nay?
I very occasionally use a small watermark on my images - but only for my travel blog, oddly.
I recently received an e-mail from Danielle, a reader who was confused that I seemed to post most of my photos online without watermarking them. We had an interesting e-mail discussion, and I received her permission to re-write the discussion into a blog post.
The case for watermarking
Photography seems to be an ever evolving art movement. As quickly as it began, it has undergone many advancements. This relatively new art practice has gone from the camera obscura to cameras built-in to our tweet-enabled, facebooking phones. Anyone has the ability to snap a photo and have it uploaded onto the web within seconds. Mind blowing? Sure. Good for business? Definitely not.
Just as quickly as advancements in technology giveth, they taketh away. Technology has made stealing photos, your sweat, blood and hard work as easy as holding down two buttons. If you don’t properly identify your photographs as your own copyrighted pieces of work with watermarks, you may find yourself hiring ip lawyers to get your intellectual property taken down and back into the rightful owner’s hands. Not watermarking your photographs with some form of logo or even simply a name is putting your work at risk.
Many photographers don’t find watermarking extremely important. In thinking that, you are putting your work out to the world to use as it pleases. Without a proper watermark, you will never know who will copy and use your photograph somewhere else. More importantly, you never know where these photographs will end up.
As a photographer, you should be aware that watermarks are there for your protection and to protect those clients who agree to be photographed. If a client should happen onto an inappropriate webpage or print that includes their picture, they will come to you looking for answers. Will you be prepared to explain the situation? As an artist, shouldn’t you take enough pride in any work you publish to include your name on it?
Some artists misconstrue watermarks as bulky and at times unprofessional looking. What they are not considering is how many different types of software and options there are to create these copyrighting texts for your photographs. Researching just a few watermarking software programs will show you that watermarks can be as simple and elegant or as bulky and obnoxious as you’d like. Of course not many artists would want a bulky addition to their work, but the point is artists have that option.
When photographs are taken out of context or away from the artist’s original concept, the integrity of the work is compromised. As photographers, we should be concerned with maintaining the utmost relevancy and honor in our work. Watermarking photographs might not be the end all to protection, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. All artists should consider taking these steps while they can because it is only a matter of time before the next boom of technology will flip the art of photography upside down once again.
What do you think?
I don't think I agree all that much with Danielle above - I do think that watermarks detract from my images, and I doubt whether watermarking is as much of a deterrent as she thinks.
What do you think?
Do you enjoy a smattering of random photography links? Well, squire, I welcome thee to join me on Twitter - Follow @Photocritic
© Kamps Consulting Ltd. This article is licenced for use on Pixiq only. Please do not reproduce wholly or in part without a license. More info.
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?
































Comments
A couple of years ago, playing in a band, a venue posted some live shots of us on their website. They were some of the best live music shots I had seen at that point. They had no watermark or anything on them. I e-mailed the venue, asking who the photographer was, and could I buy prints. I got a reply saying they only had web sized files, and that person wasn't sure who took them. I phoned, with similar results. I spoke to other people who worked there, and the best I could get was "I think it's someones husband".
I copied the web sized versions from the site. Had there been a watermark, the photographer would have had a few print sales as a minimum. Most likely would have been used to do some promo shots too.
Thinking of a watermark in terms of protecting your images is only seeing half the issue. Of course there are also times where it's more appropriate not to use one.
Great point - although I think most photographers make use of EXIF data to ensure their photos are at least traceable back to them.
Using this tool, for example: http://regex.info/exif.cgi
you can take one of my images: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/5823952993_6756b09870_z.jpg and plug it into the reader. It shows a lot of information - including the title of the image, my name, and the URL I've put into my files. This is part of my workflow in Lightroom, so there's no risk of me forgetting.
No watermarking to spoil the pictures, but imaging professionals who know what to look for know where to find the information.
Until the exif is stripped... (these web shots had no exif either, which was annoying), and you can't expect every image buyer to know about exif anyway. Other photographers maybe, but a buyer?
Still, I watermark about 50% of my shots, normally based on what kind of shot it is....
In the "Ideal World" a Water Mark would solve all problems with Photos being used Improperly. Look at the Music copyright issue. Has Warnings solved Piracy?
Watermarks and EFIX data can be removed with a little effort. If a person really wants the photo, the watermark will not stop it from being taken. Soon all photos will be electronically tagged and tracked while on line.
A friend recently copied a thumbnail and message about a "Famous" Photographer's upcoming event. It was linked on his FACEBOOK page as promotional support of the photographer. He shortly received a message that the photo was taken illegally..... He immediately removed the Thumbnail and message. ...... He wrote an apology and everyone was cool.... This person did not take the photo for personally use. He has a legal degree and has a high ranking government position.
My suggestions are:
1 - Use small jpegs on the web.
2 - If the photos are valuable, file a monthly batch Copyright for $45. No legal proceeding can start until a copyright is registered and it can take three months.
I personally do not visibly mark photos. Photos are listed as copyrighted on the efix data and any web galleries which they are posted.
A stuff showing your progress on the image is a fairly good evidence of your copyright as well: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/supporting
Richard (?), where did you see a batch copyright service for $45? copyright.gov prices start from $105 per image.
I maintain two locations on the web for my images, my stock photo blog where I put example images, best sellers, tutorials on improving a shot etc., and for that blog, I either link back to the image on the stock site (which is watermarked by them), or I add a small almost transparent copyright symbol like the one below. I do this as part of the export from Lightroom where you have a choice of adding a copyright symbol of your own design and this is where the semi-transparent image sits.
For my main photography site where I want people to see the full image because they may want a print, I use SmugMug and right click protect the photos. I know that people can do a screen capture, but at the end of the day, you can't protect everything!
Steve
My Stock photo blog
My fine art photo site
I like using a simple watermark with my name and copyright symbol so that if someone does use my image I will get credit for it since that is usually all I would ask for. It is still not nice since I don't know when/where it is used but better then nothing and it does also give a reminder to people that they should maybe ask me first.
I also use a simple watermark for advertising. I also have my copyright information stored in camera. When I post photos to facebook, the copyright is part of the comments.
Post new comment