How important is watermarking your images that get posted online?

[Rob J]

Should you (do you) watermark the images that you choose to show on the internet, or is it a non-issue?

I'm not pretentious enough to think that my photos are so good that people are out there just waiting to pirate them. While I might occasionally sell a print here and there, I don't make any part of my living selling prints or even shoot as a pro. Nobody but me likely cares about my photography. With that said, I would not be happy if I somehow found out that someone had stolen one of my photos and used it for their own purposes or claimed that it was theirs.

How likely is that to happen? Probably not very likely at all but I do often see photos online with the photographers signature or watermark imbedded in the image. When this is tastefully done, I don't find it distracting and even think that it can make an image "look" professional.

Thoughts on the matter? Do you imbed your logo or signature in your photos that get posted online? Why or why not?

 

[Arek Halusko]

I always do just to trigger people off.

 

[RDKirk]

Should you (do you) watermark the images that you choose to show on the internet, or is it a non-issue?

I'm not pretentious enough to think that my photos are so good that people are out there just waiting to pirate them. While I might occasionally sell a print here and there, I don't make any part of my living selling prints or even shoot as a pro. Nobody but me likely cares about my photography. With that said, I would not be happy if I somehow found out that someone had stolen one of my photos and used it for their own purposes or claimed that it was theirs.

How likely is that to happen? Probably not very likely at all but I do often see photos online with the photographers signature or watermark imbedded in the image. When this is tastefully done, I don't find it distracting and even think that it can make an image "look" professional.

Thoughts on the matter? Do you imbed your logo or signature in your photos that get posted online? Why or why not?

Depends on the context. I don't brand the images on my own website. I don't brand images I post in certain Facebook photography groups. In those cases, my identity as the creator is otherwise known.

I do brand the images I give to clients specifically for general social media use.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

I watermark images for social media - those I post and those I supply to clients and collaborators.

If someone likes an image and wants to hire me or work with me I want them to be able to find me.

I don't care much about pirated images -- for me they seem to help more than they hurt. So long as my name is attached, as in a watermark.

Gato

 

[Donald B]

Dont water mark any of my images hobby or pro work and that includes client media files. everyone knows i shot the images and if someone wants to book a studio session they know how to find me. I have had photos used without permission throughout the world . But i couldnt care less i have already been paid for them. and the clients think its cool that there child is on the front page of some dance school half way round the world

Don

 

[ashleymorrison]

An example of how I am able to tell you something without using any words.

 

[rumple]

Should you (do you) watermark the images that you choose to show on the internet, or is it a non-issue?

I do, unless I make a mistake. By "watermark" I mean what Ashley does: a modest copyright notice in a corner.

1. it helps people find me if needed.
2. it is a mild deterrent to theft. It may help in negotiations or proceedings if theft occurs.
3. it's easy to build into lightroom export, so takes not a whit of effort to do.

--
"THINK" - Watson

 

[Krav Maga]

I don't do watermarks with the exception of contact sheet files. I used to, but not any more.

At the end of the day, it's pointless because if someone wants to steal your image they can just edit the WM out. Unless you make it ginormous across the image which, in my opinion, looks horrible.

From my understanding, a watermark on an image is more or less a sign of "amateur."

But I have seen people use "branding" in an out of the way part of the image that, to me, doesn't scream "amateur."

But it's all subjective.

 

[Arek Halusko]

I don't do watermarks with the exception of contact sheet files. I used to, but not any more.

At the end of the day, it's pointless because if someone wants to steal your image they can just edit the WM out. Unless you make it ginormous across the image which, in my opinion, looks horrible.

I don't water mark because someone might steal it. Its already on their computer.

From my understanding, a watermark on an image is more or less a sign of "amateur."

Is that coming from other amateurs lol

But I have seen people use "branding" in an out of the way part of the image that, to me, doesn't scream "amateur."

But it's all subjective.

I do use it for branding and seriously I just use it irritate some people as some seem to get triggered by watermarks so easily, this also causes them to talk about my image even when they wouldn't normally.

 

[ashleymorrison]

I don't do watermarks with the exception of contact sheet files. I used to, but not any more.

At the end of the day, it's pointless because if someone wants to steal your image they can just edit the WM out.

I don't water mark because someone might steal it. Its already on their computer.

I would save all my work onto a number of different hard drives and would then back those up to the RAID...



.. plus I would also keep at least two copies off-site.

Which would therefore make it very hard for someone to actaully steal my images.

Added note: Downloading an image (like the one above) from the internet and removing the watermark does not remover that image from the internet - because the download is just a copy.

Hence the the Copyright Law - which basically is in place to protect my Rights as to how that copy of my work is used.

And so, part of the reason as to why I would add the Copyright information, is let you know my images are protected under that law, incase you believed they weren’t for some reason and decided to use them without my permission.

Which does happen from time to time, I’m actually pleased to say - since I do actually try to produce the type of images that others would want to use… and use a lot sometimes too ;-)

-

Please note: I have been told my posts will not be visible to other users until they have been approved by a moderator - so don’t except a quick reply or even any reply, as a result.
Cheers
Ashley

www.ashleymorrison.com

 

[Krav Maga]

I do use it for branding and seriously I just use it irritate some people as some seem to get triggered by watermarks so easily, this also causes them to talk about my image even when they wouldn't normally.

I get the branding part, but I've never known anyone to get "triggered" by someone else using a watermark.

Personally, when I see a big 'ol watermark smeared across an image, I've never had the urge to talk about it. I just move on and the image is forgotten.

But, again, it's all subjective. And this is just me.

 

[lightandaprayer]

IMO it is more important to register your copyrights than watermarking images. Registering images gives you the maximum leverage should someone use an image when it really matters to you. Enough leverage that a demand letter/invoice can result in receiving payment wand not having to get an attorney involved. (Been there, done that LOL.)

 

[Charlie BRM]

I do use it for branding and seriously I just use it irritate some people as some seem to get triggered by watermarks so easily, this also causes them to talk about my image even when they wouldn't normally.

I get the branding part, but I've never known anyone to get "triggered" by someone else using a watermark.

Personally, when I see a big 'ol watermark smeared across an image, I've never had the urge to talk about it. I just move on and the image is forgotten.

But, again, it's all subjective. And this is just me.

Interesting, in that the only people to get "triggered" by me were photographers, not the public. I was asking a question much like this thread and somewhere, could even have been here, I got jumped on big time for merely contemplating a watermark.

I think it was because the term "watermark" is properly attributed to the large transparent or edge embossed lettering laid across the middle of an image or in repeating rows. The origin was the paper makers pressing their still wet paper sheets in dies that deformed the pulp to include their brand for quality purposes.
I was asking about how to go about presenting something suitable but unobtrusive, more likely a script in the bottom corner as an attribute to the source of the photograph (me).

If I take photos for a client I don't put any marks on those images I deliver to them (I also manage their websites, mostly artists) unless they want their own business attribution. However for my own promotion I will often insert my attribution because in those circumstances I'm using them for my portfolio.

The annoying case I had was a cafe owner that paid me peanuts to book and promote small budget musicians. She paid everyone peanuts but live music is one of my things. I also recorded and video'd and photographed the bands mostly for myself and didn't charge for any of that. Repeat: I took the photographs and video at no charge to her but she had use of them for promo.

She objected when in the second year I started putting © and my name in the corner of photos I posted for the cafe to promote they offered live music. Her reasoning? The photos were taken in her establishment. I wouldn't have been able to take those photos is she didn't have the cafe. The easy solution for me was she isn't paying for any of this so I stopped doing it.

I explained that in Canada a bill was passed in parliament that photographers own the photos. You press the shutter, you own copyright. Period. I was giving her the images as a courtesy. That bothered the hell out of her. "Well that's a conversation we should have another time."

 

[ashleymorrison]

I explained that in Canada a bill was passed in parliament that photographers own the photos. You press the shutter, you own copyright. Period.

In the UK that would also be the case... but only if nothing had been agreed to (in writing) before the images were taken.

Just so you know ;-)

--
Cheers
Ashley

 

[lightandaprayer]

The annoying case I had was a cafe owner that paid me peanuts to book and promote small budget musicians. She paid everyone peanuts but live music is one of my things. I also recorded and video'd and photographed the bands mostly for myself and didn't charge for any of that. Repeat: I took the photographs and video at no charge to her but she had use of them for promo.

She objected when in the second year I started putting © and my name in the corner of photos I posted for the cafe to promote they offered live music. Her reasoning? The photos were taken in her establishment. I wouldn't have been able to take those photos is she didn't have the cafe. The easy solution for me was she isn't paying for any of this so I stopped doing it.

I explained that in Canada a bill was passed in parliament that photographers own the photos. You press the shutter, you own copyright. Period. I was giving her the images as a courtesy. That bothered the hell out of her. "Well that's a conversation we should have another time."

I hope that you were getting credit for the images prior to the copyright disagreement. That's the least you should have received for your efforts.

The cafe owner appears to be a "win/lose" kind of businesswoman: She wins and everyone else loses. I also wouldn't work with her under the conditions you describe.

What goes around comes around. . . Someday she will learn that lesson, probably the hard way.

 

[jeff51]

Real darn important. I’m not a pro image anything, and I’ve had stuff hijacked by vendors of products I’ve reviewed in articles I written. On one site I hang out, one of the members has seen his stuff show up in Youtube ads for products that are not even the same model as shown in his videos. But they are great clips!

I guess it depends on how attached you are to your work and having credit for it.

A good buddy in the graphics biz will sometimes find a design that was little more than a thumbnail sitting someplace blown up to unreal size.

He puts PROOF COPY on anything not delivered directly to the Client, and to them also until the final image is approved. And his agreement – in writing – covers specific uses of his graphics.

Hard to do when making up a site to show off your work. At least put something in there so you have some recourse at a later date.

All the Best, a Jeff

 

[Denis247]

I explained that in Canada a bill was passed in parliament that photographers own the photos. You press the shutter, you own copyright. Period.

In the UK that would also be the case... but only if nothing had been agreed to (in writing) before the images were taken.

Just so you know ;-)

You can also assign copyright to a new owner. I did this with some I took for the British Music Hall Society.

 

[BillyBobSenna]

• As copywrite protection, I don't think a watermark provides any significant benefit
• Depending on your business, watermarks could be beneficial
• If you are in a social environment and are sharing photos with people you know, a watermark could be nice
• If it marks you feel good that that people you don't even know see your watermarks, than use them

--

Bill - Beverly Hills, MI
Motorsports Photography
www.billgulkerphotography.com

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I watermark my good stuff for Facebook, but not for my own sites. Might rethink the latter. An online service that finds your images online has revealed a few unauthorized uses of my travel photos on Eastern European travel-related aggregator sites, but they're only being used quite small - essentially as thumbnails - so I'm not terribly concerned. The possibility of abuse is clearly present, though...

 

[BillyBobSenna]

Why do you watermark your good stuff? I assume you are aware they provide no significant copyright security.