PDA

View Full Version : Watermarks



Jmarmck
7-Apr-2014, 09:16
How do you feel about watermarks?
I can see the necessity of them but dislike the presents, particularly when they are somewhere in the middle of the image.
Would you view the watermark as a signature or is it strictly a legal measure?

ROL
7-Apr-2014, 09:20
It's a symptom of the ignorant and insecure. See also Netproofing (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/webmarketing#netproofing).

Jmarmck
7-Apr-2014, 10:47
It's a symptom of the ignorant and insecure. See also Netproofing (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/webmarketing#netproofing).
There is some very good information on your site.
I have been questioning how do deal with this end of photography without any real decisions.
Yes, I am a hobbyist. But I still would like to have my works viewed.

Thanks for the information. :cool:

Greg Miller
7-Apr-2014, 10:59
Register your copyright (its cheap and easy) and forget about it. Place your contact info and Copyright statement in the meta data. If someone removes that data, it is evidence that they willfully violated copyright.

alavergh
7-Apr-2014, 22:58
I know people that put watermarks on social networking sites but I think it's largely to aid in their publicity and giving them credit when somebody shares something. If I'm going to put something on Facebook where it can be "shared" I want a small mark of credit on it. If it's on my own website, nah. People really are paranoid.

Darin Boville
7-Apr-2014, 23:04
I hate the idea of putting *anything* in the image area that is not part of the image. Why degrade your work for every web viewer just to prevent the tiny threat of unauthorized use?

--Darin

Iluvmyviewcam
8-Apr-2014, 03:40
I used WM's when I first started out with digital in 2/12. But now I don't. Someone can find me from doing a search for the image if there is a question of authorship. I just don't put high res images out there. Even then I'm not into it for the $, so not that stingy about sharing.

I download images I like on the web. I print them up and put them in a post bound binder. I write the persons name on the back or if I don't know then I can't. I don't mind if people do the same with mine. A photo is worthless if no one ever sees it.

StoneNYC
8-Apr-2014, 05:48
I used WM's when I first started out with digital in 2/12. But now I don't. Someone can find me from doing a search for the image if there is a question of authorship. I just don't put high res images out there. Even then I'm not into it for the $, so not that stingy about sharing.

I download images I like on the web. I print them up and put them in a post bound binder. I write the persons name on the back or if I don't know then I can't. I don't mind if people do the same with mine. A photo is worthless if no one ever sees it.

I still don't understand what you do with them...? Why?

djdister
8-Apr-2014, 06:53
Register your copyright (its cheap and easy) and forget about it. Place your contact info and Copyright statement in the meta data. If someone removes that data, it is evidence that they willfully violated copyright.

I go with Greg's idea of embedding name and copyright information in the metadata of the image file. It is not visible in the image at all, and it would require someone to edit the metadata to remove it. Most image files have the ability to embed metadata in the file. It's a hidden watermark...

Jim Jones
8-Apr-2014, 06:55
I still don't understand what you do with them...? Why?

When discussing photos with friends or students, it's good to have photos to discuss. Consider Susan Sontag's On Photography, or better yet, don't consider it.

StoneNYC
8-Apr-2014, 08:30
When discussing photos with friends or students, it's good to have photos to discuss. Consider Susan Sontag's On Photography, or better yet, don't consider it.

Then you should buy the artists book, not make ink jet prints... Lol

koh303
9-Apr-2014, 08:54
Register your copyright (its cheap and easy) and forget about it. Place your contact info and Copyright statement in the meta data. If someone removes that data, it is evidence that they willfully violated copyright.

Of course the united states is the only country in the world with copy right laws, that requires one to "register" his work in order to benefit form the protection of the law.
Its kind of like "afluenza" in reverese.

Using watermarks would be relevant if you shoot images that would appear on wide circulation such as daily news, or magazines (and even there the actual pay is very little, so much as to make the hassle of having to register each and every photo you make in real time for it to take effect meaningless). Otherwise, it is mostly used for self promotion.

From the link that greg provided, it seems that thise photographer who do not "bother to register" their copyright are not professional enough, or not in the eyes of the US law. People who make a living from photography, usually never meet the "professional" criteria set by these standards, in more then just one way, yet they get paid, and the rest of those "certified professionals" do not.

Image copyright infrigment cases are ultra rare, rarely end with a monetary compensation, especially in the US, where the more money you have the better chances you have to not loose a court case. In the rest of the world, the stats are similar but are more often then not decided in the favor of the photographer/copyright owner.

jp
9-Apr-2014, 13:14
A photo is worthless if no one ever sees it.

I wouldn't claim that. It could scratch a creative itch or help you connect with someone or some place in the process of seeing that resulted in a photograph. That's the worth most photos will have to amateurs like me.

Photos online are approaching worthless if you compare $ to volume of images....

cuypers1807
9-Apr-2014, 19:52
I don't post much on the internet anymore and if I do I embed data and use watermarks. I have had several photos stolen. One photo of my daughter is being used all over the world without my permission. I have had it removed from Pinterest 10 times, all from sources other than me with no link or reference to me. It is being used as a motivational poster in Spain. You can make postcards of it in Turkey and send it to your friends. It is advertising for several piano schools in Vietnam, China and Thailand. Domestically, Other than Pinterest, I have found people using it as an avatar on Twitter and Facebook. There are so many I have lost count. Don't rely on the internet to show your work. It is over saturated as it is with images. Print your work. Show it locally. Get to know other photographers who can help you promote your work.

Jmarmck
10-Apr-2014, 06:03
Would you view a signature as a watermark? After all, most painters sign their work.

David R Munson
10-Apr-2014, 06:08
I often put my name and URL in tiny print in the bottom corner of an image if it's going on my blog, as things tend to get bounced around in the blog world, but that's more about getting people to go back to the source than protecting anything of mine. People can and will steal anything you put on the web, so I don't see much point in putting energy into keeping that from happening, especially if it's a web-resolution jpg of something.

David R Munson
10-Apr-2014, 06:25
And what about the fact that Google also gives you the capacity to search using an image and find the original source of it? Orphaned images reunited with their sources. The game has changed, but it's not all downhill.

Greg Miller
10-Apr-2014, 06:29
Don't know if they still do, but Google and others strip all metadata for the images they display. They won a court fight giving them the "right" to display smaller versions of images anyone puts on the web. Many of us still feel this is Copyright Infringement - we did not give them the right to display our images.

We want the right to control how our image is shown and used but outfits like Google put them up - so we may well be next to ads and information we disagree with and would never willingly let our work be associated with.

This is true, Facebook does the same, but if someone takes a photo from Google and uses it, the onus is on them to demonstrate that they took adeqaute steps to find the rightful owner. Google provides an easy tool of their own to find other places the image exists, so it would be hard to claim rightful use if they were to try to defend themselves.

David R Munson
10-Apr-2014, 07:16
Many would rather they do not take our images for any use without our OK

Understandably, but that's not the nature of the situation. If someone doesn't want his images taken elsewhere on the internet, the only way to ensure that is to not put anything online.

koh303
10-Apr-2014, 07:43
Many would rather they do not take our images for any use without our OK.

How many is "Many"? I happen to think a great many more prefer to have their images on google, because if they are not searchable by google, they do not exist, just a news event that was not photographed never happened.

Greg Miller
10-Apr-2014, 08:08
The bottom line is groups like ASMP all state that best practice is to include your information in meta data. Nothing is ever perfect. And virtually everyone serious about their photography needs to have an internet presence.

StoneNYC
10-Apr-2014, 09:23
What purpose does it serve google to strip the image of metadata? Why would they need to, and what idiot judge thought this was in anyway legal, especially if the image is registered ...?

cuypers1807
10-Apr-2014, 10:21
Greg, I would disagree with you. There are some amazing artists that do not have a strong internet presence.
The internet has destroyed the value of photography. Popularity on the internet doesn't always translate to popularity in real life.

Jmarmck
10-Apr-2014, 12:13
I have a number of videos on You Tube that are constructed from stills with some music added, a cheap video if you will. When these are uploaded and made public, anyone can and will link to it. I have found that several business will use the links in their own pages. That is flattering but it is done without expressed permissions despite there being a CC licensing statement as to the limitations to its use. Of course, no one ever reads it. Normally, I could care less but when they use it to make money I get a bit bent. Real Estate people are the worst. But the only really way to stop it is to take the works down. One cannot put things up and expect the public to respect your rights. It is just not going to happen that way.

BTW don't ever use the word "feet" in a title. The fetish people will use it.

I still am curious about the signature.

Greg Miller
10-Apr-2014, 12:27
Greg, I would disagree with you. There are some amazing artists that do not have a strong internet presence.
The internet has destroyed the value of photography. Popularity on the internet doesn't always translate to popularity in real life.

Amazing artists already have a good sales network in place. If you are not already recognized as an amazing artist, then you probably need an internet presence if you want to grow your business.

koh303
10-Apr-2014, 15:41
Greg, I would disagree with you. There are some amazing artists that do not have a strong internet presence.
The internet has destroyed the value of photography. Popularity on the internet doesn't always translate to popularity in real life.

Sure there, and i have no idea who they are, and probably never will.

toyotadesigner
11-Apr-2014, 11:42
On the iNet I'm using the embedded exif data (already generated in the camera) plus Digimarc digital watermarking. Digimarc® for Images allows you to embed imperceptible, persistent digital watermarks into your images to communicate ownership and other information. Nobody can delete the embedded information, it is always in the image. In addition I place a clearly visible copyright note above the image on a separate layer.

From time to time I drop some images into images.google.com to check if any of my images appear somewhere else.

I started this workflow after some suckers used my images in travel catalogs. Believe me - it works! And for US$ 49/year for up to 1.000 images it's very reasonable.