Watermarking images

[cliveh]

Is this of any value? If someone wants to nick my on-line images I would be flattered. Images on the web are usually at such low resolution that I see no point in protecting them in this way. What do others think? This could be in wrong forum, so moderators please move if this necessary.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I think that watermarks are like signing a painting, well worth doing. Just don't be that guy who signs his painting with foot high, white letters diagonally across the whole thing so no one can see what the picture actually is through all that

 

[Sirius Glass]

I solved the problem by no longer posting my photographs and remove any from the net with the exception of my avatar.

 

[wildbill]

people will steal ANYTHING.

 

[erikg]

They can be used as a deterrent to theft in the manner that stock agencies use them, across the image. The thinking being that the photoshop time needed to remove it will cost more than it would to buy the rights. Another reason to do it is to make it very easy to find you and get proper permission. Putting contact info in the metadata is a good idea too.

 

[Trail Images]

I solved the problem by no longer posting my photographs and remove any from the net with the exception of my avatar.

The only way to prevent it, bottom line. Watermarking and metadata will only slow some of it. Then one can use the programs that will help track the stolen image if it is re-posted, but no guarantees there. The folks that take an image for a documentary point of view and give full credit to the owner is additional advertising. However, the folks that take the image and start making and selling note cards with the images is another thing.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm with Cliveh. Sharing photographs with fellow photographers is worth any damage a few thieving scoundrels can do to us.

 

[ic-racer]

My negative carrier edge is my watermark on certain images. No two filed out negative carriers are alike. In fact one could argue that no two cameras project the same image frame.

(389) Such markings, however, will remain on the negative
and any uncropped prints. Because these markings on inexpensive
cameras tend to be distributed in a random pattern unique to each
camera, they serve as identifiers for determining whether a
particular negative or uncropped photograph was originally
exposed in any particular camera.
Volume VI of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON ASSASSINATIONS:

 

[ntenny]

I'll worry about it when I manage to take some photos worth stealing!

Actually, I've had one or two cases of "unauthorized reuse", but never with any sign of ill intent. I was always able to contact the poster and say "hey now, credit your photos please", and they did. But I have the luxury of not trying to make money from photography---if I needed to sell images, I don't think there really is a way to post them in a useful way while still preventing theft.

But for fine art photographers, it seems like the person who might buy your expensive print is unlikely to be satisfied with a stolen low-resolution copy, so your actual sales aren't directly threatened. It seems like this is mainly a concern for stock-type uses, right?

-NT

 

[giannisg2004]

Watermarks are anti-aesthetic and distracting.

Also, they serve no purpose at all.
The real life equivalent would be someone displaying his work and screaming "don't steal this, it's mine" or "look what I made! See this? I made it. I, I, I" to everyone passing by.

Protection against stealing?
Please.
A company using a photo without first contacting the copyright owner to secure te rights, is not a company you'll be seeing money from.
There's no money to be had from them.
Period.
They'll either crop your watermark, or just steal another photog's work.
But stop thinking of this as lost money.
These money weren't on the table to begin with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Watermarks are anti-aesthetic and distracting.

Also, they serve no purpose at all.
The real life equivalent would be someone displaying his work and screaming "don't steal this, it's mine" or "look what I made! See this? I made it. I, I, I" to everyone passing by.

Protection against stealing?
Please.
A company using a photo without first contacting the copyright owner to secure te rights, is not a company you'll be seeing money from.
There's no money to be had from them.
Period.
They'll either crop your watermark, or just steal another photog's work.
But stop thinking of this as lost money.
These money weren't on the table to begin with.

- infinity

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I solved that old question easily by not posting anything on the web! That is surest way of maintaining your intellectual property as yours.

However, if I was a thief, I can tell you that watermarks of any sort are easily defeated. Any op skilled in Photoshop or Lightroom will make it a doddle. Doublet images (clear gif overlaying the image) that when saved appear as blank, are good for a fright, but still not 100% foolproof.

In the end, only put up on the web low res or clipped/cropped sections of an image or nothing at all.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I solved that old question easily by not posting anything on the web! That is surest way of maintaining your intellectual property as yours.

A wise man. See post #3.

 

[fotch]

OK, so you protect your pictures, what about your thoughts, anything you say on the web can be taken and you can't do anything about it. You may not know what is being stolen, copied, etc. Note what is happening to your private data, credit info, identity, that is something to try and stop.

 

[giannisg2004]

I don't get the defensiveness about "intellectual property".

From a business perspective I don't think you lose any customers from not watermarking.
The true customers are gonna pay, an they freeloaders aren't gonna pay, no matter what you do.
Why spoil the (viewing) experience of legitimate customers, or simple viewers who are the majority, for the sake of a couple freeloaders that are gonna bypass you anyway?

From an ethical perspective, intellectual property is a nightmare.
Art, much like science, is derivative.
So, unrestricted access to new material is crucial for its advancement.
How would you feel if professor Higgs and CERN didn't publish their research papers and experiment results, so as to protect their "intellectual property"?
Or if they published only a small part of it, and you needed to pay for full access?

 

[blockend]

I associate watermarks with mediocre imagery. The best chance of hanging onto your copyright is taking a photograph so good it'll go viral and everyone will associate you with it.