Watermarking and Photo CDs

[pr0digal]

I have a quick question about watermarking that has probably been answered before. If somebody, such as a parent, buys a set of photos from you, such as their child riding in a horse clinic, and request that you send them a CD of the photos, can you still put your watermark on the photos? In my case, it is just "Ethan Hansen Photography" in one of the corners.

I am asking this question becuase I am faced with this exact dillema. I have a set of about 40 pictures of a particular girl riding in a horse clinic. The father wants some of the photos sent to him on a CD (I already set up a web gallery with proofs). So when I send him the CD with the full sized JPGs, do I leave my watermark on or take it off?

Also, if I were to print some photos for him, would there be a watermark?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Ethan

*edit, an example photo (which looks different from when I had it open in CS3)*

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9184/img6703of6.jpg

[Aszental]

If they are buying the cd from you then no, there wouldn't be watermarks on it. However you have to price the cd accordingly, as by giving them the full resolution files your giving up any future profit streams from the photos.

If they are buying the print from you then you wouldnt leave the watermark on.

Watermarks are there to stop people lets say downloading it from the proof website and printing it of, if they buy it from you there is no need for one.

hope this helps

[hlcowan]

My market has been primarily high school sports. With every print purchase, the purchaser receives a cd with the watermarked digital image. This way the students have it to post on their myspace, the parents (or students) have the print without the watermark to display, and I get advertising from the myspace photos.
However, when I shot a wedding last summer, the couple purchased many digital images, and those were priced accordingly, without watermarks.

[pr0digal]

If they are buying the cd from you then no, there wouldn't be watermarks on it. However you have to price the cd accordingly, as by giving them the full resolution files your giving up any future profit streams from the photos.

If they are buying the print from you then you wouldnt leave the watermark on.

Watermarks are there to stop people lets say downloading it from the proof website and printing it of, if they buy it from you there is no need for one.

hope this helps

Thank you, it does.

What do you mean by "giving up future profit streams from the photos" and how should I price for the high resolution (which I am sure has been answered many times before)?

I'm sorry for the stupid questions, but I am quite new to the entire business aspect of photography.

[amfoto1]

Hi Ethan,

Nearly all my event prints and digital images go out with a "signature" in the lower RH or lower LH corner. All my fine art prints have the same signature. It's toned down and a lot smaller than what you show, but it serves just as well under copyright law. The copyright notice is on the back of prints anyway. CDs have the notice both imprinted on them and contained it in both .txt and .doc file formats.

My only exceptions are images for editorial or commercial usage, where a signature on the image is not appropriate.

The proofs on my web galleries are pretty well protected from download by the vendor, and are limited to low res thumbnails anyway. I stopped using "Proof" watermarks on them. I felt it sent a bad message to my customers, that I don't trust them (sort of like when retailers stop you on the way out to check your bag and receipt), and just detracted from the images. Not worth it. Over the past several years I know of just three or four images being taken without my permission, out of some 8000 to 10,000 currently on there. One showed up on a website and looked pretty bad when it was enlarged even just it a little. The others were taken by someone in a band to use on their website... You'd think musicians would be sensitive to copyrights! At least they were smart enough to not try to resize the images!

In either case, if they'd asked, I would have given them permission to use anyway.

[pr0digal]

Hi Ethan,

Nearly all my event prints and digital images go out with a "signature" in the lower RH or lower LH corner. All my fine art prints have the same signature. It's toned down and a lot smaller than what you show, but it serves just as well under copyright law. The copyright notice is on the back of prints anyway. CDs have the notice both imprinted on them and contained it in both .txt and .doc file formats.

My only exceptions are images for editorial or commercial usage, where a signature on the image is not appropriate.

The proofs on my web galleries are pretty well protected from download by the vendor, and are limited to low res thumbnails anyway. I stopped using "Proof" watermarks on them. I felt it sent a bad message to my customers, and just detracted from the images. Over the past several years I know of just three or four images being taken without permission, out of some 8000 to 10,000 currently on there. One showed up on a website and looked pretty bad when it was enlarged even just it a little. The others were taken by someone in a band to use on their website... You'd think musicians would be sensitive to copyrights! At least they were smart enough to not try to resize the images!

In either case, if they'd asked, I would have given them permission to use anyway.

Thanks for the update, so I were to size down the watermark I have now (or just replace it with my name), then it would be appropriate to place it on the digital files (and prints) I sell to people?

Thanks again

[amfoto1]

Thanks for the update, so I were to size down the watermark I have now (or just replace it with my name), then it would be appropriate to place it on the digital files (and prints) I sell to people?

Thanks again

Hi,

I feel it would be. It's the same as a watercolorist or oil painter signing a painting.

I use a script font that actually looks somewhat similar to my "art" signature (which is different from my legal signature). I add it with photoshop and make the layer partially transparent, so it isn't gaudy or objectionable.

I was using the copyright "C" with it, but stopped doing that... It looked a bit tacky I thought. Now the copyright info goes on the back of prints, where it's every bit as valid.

What you do on thumbnails and proofs might be a lot more dominant and a stronger deterrent, but that's up to you.

[tim]

I don't think photographers should put their names on photos, unless perhaps it's a limited edition fine art print and it's discrete. I never have. One studio I know of in my city does, they're the "big name" studio. Maybe that's why they're a big name....

[pr0digal]

Thanks for the info everybody, I will take it into consideration.

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for good web hosts? The list I have complied so far is as follows:
AN Hosting
Hostgator
Eleven2
Dreamhost
Lunarpages (though I have very very mixed thing about them)

[Aszental]

dreamhost are great, look around there should be some discount codes so u can save some money.

[tim]

Hostgator (http://secure.hostgator.com/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=m96rty-hr) are fantastic.