What does your watermark say about you?

[WillMass]

I'm an event photographer. Right from the beginning I used a watermark, for online images, that included my URL or company's name. My thinking was if someone stole a photo, at least they'd be advertising for me.

As a side benefit, when people saw my watermarked images on Facebook, MySpace and the like, they would often report the theft to me.

Earlier today I was cruising an equestrian BB and was reading a thread where members were posting photos of their horses. I was stunned at the numbers of stolen photos I saw. Some had dozens, if not hundreds, on various photo sharing sites. One even had several on her business' website! What stunned me more was the number of photographers who had simply used the word "PROOF" on their images, giving the viewer no way to know who took the photo or who to report the theft to.

As event photographers, we frequently shoot on spec and/or have to pay a vendor's fee. Then we get ripped off by the event participants.

I'd strongly suggest, if you post photos on the web, incorporate your company name or some way to identify you in your watermark. Most e-commerce solutions will allow you to do this. Protect yourself.

Side note: Please don't tell me how safe your site is, and how your photos can't be copied because of this, that or some other thing. Bottom line: If I can see it on a screen, I can cap it in less than 3 seconds. Yes even off a flash site. Don't believe me? Dare me.

Final note: A couple months ago I saw an eventer's personal website that had 47 watermarked images shot by a friend of mine. The site was touting the rider's accomplishments. When I told my buddy, he checked and NONE of the 47 images had been purchased.

Before you ask, "How much could a watermarked thumbnail be worth?" Ask yourself; How much lost revenue did those 47 images represent to him? They obviously had value to the rider.

[deletedpenguin]

Great post. I've started putting a banner through the corner that eliminates most opportunities to crop, but like you said - it won't stop people from using it still. Just ask the Orange County Register.

[carlosm]

yea, imthining about doing a full size water mark or maybe one directly in the middle of my photo.

people will always be grimey. Ill also only upload lo res images.

[cabandrew]

I post some of my photos on my facebook and obviously I did on my now down website, but I put a big watermark rite in the center of the image all of the way across it. Yes it may not look the greatest, but at least it makes it really hard for people to photoshop out, etc.

[FlyingPhotog]

Mine shows that I'm obviously divided between the just dicking around (Lightroom © on PBase) and the serious "Photography By" on Zenfolio and that I need to spend more time on the Zen than the crap I usually put on PBase...

How's that for confession? :lol:

[cdifoto]

I don't do shoots that rely on print sales (I gave up on that awhile ago because it wasn't worth the stress), so I don't kill the viewability with a watermark through the image content. If I see a stolen pic somewhere I'll report it accordingly but I don't lose sleep over it.

[Floriantrojer.com]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3500727917_3d06b6f546_o.jpg

Works like a charm I can tell you. Everyone knows who to contact, plus I don't need to post 200 pix wide photos because I am afraid someone uses bigger resolutions for prints.

Don't give them a chance! Plus, a web URL in the watermark also shows honest people interested in purchases where to go and whom to contact.... win / win situation!

[Eclipse1]

excellent idea. My watermark doesn't have my url in it but it does have my business name front and center!

http://imagesbyceci.smugmug.com/photos/544816757_zkYYe-M-2.jpg

[cdifoto]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/2009-05-09-0008.jpg

Shameless self-promotion. (Arguably) easier to read. Doesn't hurt the enjoyability of the photo.

[Metalstrm]

Easier to read but practically has no security value. Just like my sig...

[rickdog]

out of curiosity, where does one report this kind of theft?

[CanadianKitKat]

For event work I put a big fat one all the way across and it includes my website address.

http://kitkat987.smugmug.com/photos/545427569_yDB2A-L.jpg

For work that I've been paid to do already but won't get any more sales from I still put my big fat KTK down in the corner when I put it on the web. And often have people on POTN telling me how annoying it is because it ruins the picture ;)

http://kitkat987.smugmug.com/photos/539305208_PtGK5-L.jpg

[Dan-o]

Doesn't hurt the enjoyability of the photo.

Well why would it. It isn't a watermark it is just a sig.

[DDCSD]

Mine says "My dad doesn't care if you steal me, but make sure everyone knows where I came from."

I just put my web address across the center of the photo at about 30% opacity. Easy to read but you can still clearly see the photo.




I can't tell what your business name is by looking at this photo. You should use a simpler font.

excellent idea. My watermark doesn't have my url in it but it does have my business name front and center!

http://imagesbyceci.smugmug.com/photos/544816757_zkYYe-M-2.jpg



I'd ditch the big fat "PROOF" and make your URL bigger and center. I can't make out the URL on this.


For event work I put a big fat one all the way across and it includes my website address.

http://kitkat987.smugmug.com/photos/545427569_yDB2A-L.jpg

[cdifoto]

Well why would it. It isn't a watermark it is just a sig.
That's the point. I don't do jobs that I feel I have to deface the images from with a watermark.

[Dan-o]

It doesn't have to be your client taking it. What if the image you just posted ended up on a travel website?

[bubbawillums]

I'm finding mreo and more of my stolen work on people profiles on Facebook. I used to get annoyed by it but as they resize pics to a very small res on upload they cant really be printed and i've also now got the mogrify plugin that allows me to add a watermark on export so i now add my website URL onto any photo that i post online so rather than my pics being stolen at no value to me they are now advertising my website and work at the same time for me.

I've had quite a few extra hits to my site and a few business leads too so i see this as a postive step forward :)

[photoarray]

out of curiosity, where does one report this kind of theft?

The first step is to send the site/business owner a cease and desist letter. There are many examples out there. I would send an email version first, if the situation continues I would send a registered letter that requires the owner to sign for it.

It has been my experience that emailing the letter and letting the owner know that they are not allowed to use your work, they will quickly take down the pictures.

[WillMass]

Honestly, I've had numerous photos published, with photo credit, various publications. And I've never had a job inquiry come from one, much less a "Hey, I saw one of your photos on someone's Facebook profile, and want to book you for a job" e-mail.

That aside, I've had exactly the opposite reaction. Where the individual refuses to remove the stolen file. Then the only recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP or owner of the site. Legally, they MUST remove it upon receipt of such a notice or risk being named in an infringement suit.

Below is an exchange I had with someone on a BB regarding horse show photos being stolen off photographer's websites. It will show you what many of us are up against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillMass
Assuming the material is copyrighted, (and by law it is the moment the photographer releases the shutter) what difference does it make WHAT the subject matter is?

Image theft has become a huge problem for event photographers, costing us considerable income.

Considering most event photographers have to pay for the privilege to photograph an event, most of us view it as another form of shoplifting. And many of us are starting to take a firm position against it.

In a recent thread, on this board, people on here were asking why we had stopped posting our photos online. I suggested that perhaps the equestrians should let people know that lifting photos off websites wasn't cool and was impacting them as well at the photographers. I was simply putting my money where my mouth is.

Think it's no big deal, and everybody does it?

Check this out: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504


Response:

I am well aware of the copyright laws. I just think that in this case the law is an ass.

A photographer snaps a picture of ME, more than likely without my consent. They then take that picture of ME and post it on the internet. Once on the internet anyone and everyone has access to the picture of ME. The photographer will sell that picture of ME to ANYONE wanting to buy it.

And then they get all snippy because I put that picture of ME on MY Facebook page. A picture or proof that they took on spec.

You don't want me to post a picture of myself, that you took, on Facebook? Don't post my picture on the internet and try to make money off of an image of me.

[carlosm]

Honestly, I've had numerous photos published, with photo credit, various publications. And I've never had a job inquiry come from one, much less a "Hey, I saw one of your photos on someone's Facebook profile, and want to book you for a job" e-mail.

That aside, I've had exactly the opposite reaction. Where the individual refuses to remove the stolen file. Then the only recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP or owner of the site. Legally, they MUST remove it upon receipt of such a notice or risk being named in an infringement suit.

Below is an exchange I had with someone on a BB regarding horse show photos being stolen off photographer's websites. It will show you what many of us are up against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillMass
Assuming the material is copyrighted, (and by law it is the moment the photographer releases the shutter) what difference does it make WHAT the subject matter is?

Image theft has become a huge problem for event photographers, costing us considerable income.

Considering most event photographers have to pay for the privilege to photograph an event, most of us view it as another form of shoplifting. And many of us are starting to take a firm position against it.

In a recent thread, on this board, people on here were asking why we had stopped posting our photos online. I suggested that perhaps the equestrians should let people know that lifting photos off websites wasn't cool and was impacting them as well at the photographers. I was simply putting my money where my mouth is.

Think it's no big deal, and everybody does it?

Check this out: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504


Response:

I am well aware of the copyright laws. I just think that in this case the law is an ass.

A photographer snaps a picture of ME, more than likely without my consent. They then take that picture of ME and post it on the internet. Once on the internet anyone and everyone has access to the picture of ME. The photographer will sell that picture of ME to ANYONE wanting to buy it.

And then they get all snippy because I put that picture of ME on MY Facebook page. A picture or proof that they took on spec.

You don't want me to post a picture of myself, that you took, on Facebook? Don't post my picture on the internet and try to make money off of an image of me.


wow what a douchbag

[chakalakasp]

What's odd here is that almost all of the watermarks are missing the only really important thing your watermark need to have:

"COPYRIGHT <your name here> 2009".

[chakalakasp]

It doesn't have to be your client taking it. What if the image you just posted ended up on a travel website?

Then hopefully you have your copyrights registered. Send them a bill. Or hire an IP attorney. If you have your copyrights registered, there are many that will take your case on contingency. Many attorneys are good at recovering money through nothing more than sending a scary (but factually true) letter explaining that it's time to settle up or go to court.

/I am not a lawyer

[gooble]

The longer I've been into photography the more I tend to think that watermarks on images are a big eye sore and do little to protect your interests.

What they do is make your work less appealing to potential clients by mussing them up and people who are really interested in stealing your work will steal it anyway.

I've looked at many pro photographers blogs and portfolios and very few of them have watermarks. If anything they have a small copyright notification in the corner or not on the picture at all but below as a caption. And I'd say that virtually none have giant watermarks that streak across the main part of the image.

In addition covering the picture with watermarks does absolutely nothing to protect you should the images be stolen and used. It doesn't guarantee you anything in terms of damages. The moment a picture is taken it is copyrighted by the photographer regardless of whether or not they plaster it on the picture. Something actually useful to do is register your copyrights with the Library of Congress if you're a U.S. citizen or like agency in your country. Doing this greatly increases the chances that you'll recieve damages and legal fees from a theft of your work.

Edit: I should add that I don't think they're bad in all situations. I can imaging them being well suited for certain situations like event photography where you would allow the public access to them online for purchase. Using a defacing watermark in that case may be the most logical step to protect you business.

[chakalakasp]

In addition covering the picture with watermarks does absolutely nothing to protect you should the images be stolen and used. It doesn't guarantee you anything in terms of damages. The moment a picture is taken it is copyrighted by the photographer regardless of whether or not the plaster it on the picture. Something actually useful to do is register your copyrights with the Library of Congress if you're a U.S. citizen or like agency in your country. Doing this greatly increases the chances that you'll recieve damages and legal fees from a theft of your work.


Caveat: putting a watermark with a "copyright <your name here>" notice on it does increase the potential to recover damages (should some infringer remove the notice), at least in the United States.

[gooble]

Caveat: putting a watermark with a "copyright <your name here>" notice on it does increase the potential to recover damages (should some infringer remove the notice), at least in the United States.

I seem to remember that but there is no requirement that it be large and across the bulk of the image is there?

Would the increase in damages apply when a small copyright notice in the corner is cropped out?

[tim]

cdi - I can crop your logo off an image in about two seconds.

My blog photos look like this. For facebook I get rid of the bar and the word blog, and just hav the logo bottom right.

[WillMass]

The longer I've been into photography the more I tend to think that watermarks on images are a big eye sore and do little to protect your interests.

What they do is make your work less appealing to potential clients by mussing them up and people who are really interested in stealing your work will steal it anyway.

I've looked at many pro photographers blogs and portfolios and very few of them have watermarks. If anything they have a small copyright notification in the corner or not on the picture at all but below as a caption. And I'd say that virtually none have giant watermarks that streak across the main part of the image.

In addition covering the picture with watermarks does absolutely nothing to protect you should the images be stolen and used. It doesn't guarantee you anything in terms of damages. The moment a picture is taken it is copyrighted by the photographer regardless of whether or not they plaster it on the picture. Something actually useful to do is register your copyrights with the Library of Congress if you're a U.S. citizen or like agency in your country. Doing this greatly increases the chances that you'll recieve damages and legal fees from a theft of your work.

Edit: I should add that I don't think they're bad in all situations. I can imaging them being well suited for certain situations like event photography where you would allow the public access to them online for purchase. Using a defacing watermark in that case may be the most logical step to protect you business.

I would suggest that while watermarking the photos with something that identifies the photographer (unlike the word "Proof") will not increase your ability to collect money, it does; A) Make it easier for others to report the theft to you, B) Make it easier to to illustrate the image is yours when sending a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP.

[chakalakasp]

I seem to remember that but there is no requirement that it be large and across the bulk of the image is there?

Would the increase in damages apply when a small copyright notice in the corner is cropped out?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Don't rely on me for legal advice. :)

That said, you're definately correct -- you don't have to make a copyright watermark large or garish for the DMCA provision to kick in. It just has to be there. Actually, sometimes just having the copyright info in the metadata of the image is enough. If someone infringing on the copyright removes it, they've violated the DMCA provision.

[canonnoob]

says my name and what i do... lol

[cdifoto]

cdi - I can crop your logo off an image in about two seconds.
I know. But the point is I don't care. I could crop the logo off yours in about two seconds as well. :)

[cabandrew]

If you post photos on Facebook and don't want a bunch of people you don't know
looking at them, then make the album private, good grief its not that hard. Hopefully
the people looking at them will be your "Friends" and people that you know, would'nt steal
them anyway. Just my thoughts :)

[James Robert Gratiot]

I suppose you could use shame. Put a nice watermark that says, "The person who posted this picture has a very small *******" Or something like that.

[DDCSD]

I suppose you could use shame. Put a nice watermark that says, "The person who posted this picture has a very small *******" Or something like that.

No, that's what you do to people that hot-link from your site...:lol:

[5x5 photography]

I use a text watermark "Phoenix Photography" in the bottom right hand corner.
Big enough if it were to be cropped out it would change the picture but small enough as to not be intrusive.
I like the idea of a url.

[Nouks]

Some of the watermarks in this thread are very hard to read. I think a watermark should:

- Tell people you were the one who took the shot
- Should prevent theft
- Should send people to your website.

Unreadable watermarks just do number 2. Noone knows you took the picture when not able to read your name, same on number 3.

Here's mine:

http://www.nouks.nl/20090521_Dauwpop/content/bin/images/large/AT_20090521_Dauwpop_0331.jpg

It's pretty subtile, in some photos (depends on the shot) it might be easy to clone it out but I think it's nearly impossible to create a subtile watermark that suits all photos.

It has an informal look, which suits my business best I think, and it's personal since I wrote it myself. Almost everyone I discussed my watermark with said "It's just you".

[WillMass]

If you post photos on Facebook and don't want a bunch of people you don't know
looking at them, then make the album private, good grief its not that hard. Hopefully
the people looking at them will be your "Friends" and people that you know, would'nt steal
them anyway. Just my thoughts :)


Ummm, what if you post your photos on your own website, or on an e-commerce site for customers to purchase. But instead some/many steal the photos and put them on their Facebook page?

That's what this discussion is about.

Or as you said above; "Good Grief".

[obnoxiousmom]

I put a Banner over all of my images making sure I cover just enough of an important area but not all so that you still get the point of the photo

[Rubi Jane]

As an event photographer I totally understand what you're saying, however I also see it from the subjects POV. Unless the entry form explicitly says that by registering for the event they give consent to having their photo taken, displayed online and available for sale do you really have the right to post & make their image available for sale?. This is where the event organizers have to do their part before making a registration form available.

Do you legally have the right to sell the images of an event participant without their consent? My understanding is it's almost expected when someone registers or enters the event, however if it's not spelled out in the entry or registration form legally you should obtain a model release to sell the images.

I water mark with a 30% opacity mark which includes my logo, copyright year and website. The use of images by participants on social media sites I chalk up to the cost of doing business. Admittedly, I'd be choked to see a mass of watermarked images on a person's site who has never purchased from me. I'd likely communicate in a light hearted manner and attempt to educate them on copyright but I wouldn't get all hell bent if they didn't remove. I'd ask if they would place a link to my site, OK so it might not create a sale but it improves the situation. I may also make a visual note of the person if they were familiar to me from events and make a point of not posting their images in the future.

It's all a royal PITA, but my energy is better spent building my business rather than worrying about deadbeats.


Honestly, I've had numerous photos published, with photo credit, various publications. And I've never had a job inquiry come from one, much less a "Hey, I saw one of your photos on someone's Facebook profile, and want to book you for a job" e-mail.

That aside, I've had exactly the opposite reaction. Where the individual refuses to remove the stolen file. Then the only recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP or owner of the site. Legally, they MUST remove it upon receipt of such a notice or risk being named in an infringement suit.

Below is an exchange I had with someone on a BB regarding horse show photos being stolen off photographer's websites. It will show you what many of us are up against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillMass
Assuming the material is copyrighted, (and by law it is the moment the photographer releases the shutter) what difference does it make WHAT the subject matter is?

Image theft has become a huge problem for event photographers, costing us considerable income.

Considering most event photographers have to pay for the privilege to photograph an event, most of us view it as another form of shoplifting. And many of us are starting to take a firm position against it.

In a recent thread, on this board, people on here were asking why we had stopped posting our photos online. I suggested that perhaps the equestrians should let people know that lifting photos off websites wasn't cool and was impacting them as well at the photographers. I was simply putting my money where my mouth is.

Think it's no big deal, and everybody does it?

Check this out: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504


Response:

I am well aware of the copyright laws. I just think that in this case the law is an ass.

A photographer snaps a picture of ME, more than likely without my consent. They then take that picture of ME and post it on the internet. Once on the internet anyone and everyone has access to the picture of ME. The photographer will sell that picture of ME to ANYONE wanting to buy it.

And then they get all snippy because I put that picture of ME on MY Facebook page. A picture or proof that they took on spec.

You don't want me to post a picture of myself, that you took, on Facebook? Don't post my picture on the internet and try to make money off of an image of me.

[DDCSD]

As an event photographer I totally understand what you're saying, however I also see it from the subjects POV. Unless the entry form explicitly says that by registering for the event they give consent to having their photo taken, displayed online and available for sale do you really have the right to post & make their image available for sale?. This is where the event organizers have to do their part before making a registration form available.

Do you legally have the right to sell the images of an event participant without their consent? My understanding is it's almost expected when someone registers or enters the event, however if it's not spelled out in the entry or registration form legally you should obtain a model release to sell the images.

No release is required in the US to post photos of someone online and sell them.

[Rachel B]

How do you get nice diagonal lines going across your photographs with your URL on it? I find it hard to get the lines parallel

[James Robert Gratiot]

It's all a royal PITA, but my energy is better spent building my business rather than worrying about deadbeats.

Lindsey's absolutely right... spending five hours marketing your business is a much better use of time than spending five hours threatening legal action against some cheapskate client.

[Floriantrojer.com]

I am not sure if everyone gets the point of my image posted on page one.

I have a big "Copyright 2009 my url" across images I post on forums, websites etc..

The reason for that:

a-) unless someone puts a whole lot of time and skills into it, you can't clone or crop it out, because it is all across the motive.

b-) if someone steals it with the watermark, it at least looks ****ty on their site / in print.

c-) (and that's the most important one): If another person (most likely a photographer or one who knows about copyright ) stumbles across my photo with my watermark on it, he can go to my website, shoot me an e-mail and makes me aware of the theft!

I do this all the time when seeing copyrighted photos on websites, and most of the time photographers come back thanking me for that, because they were not aware of the usage! Other photographers did the same for me various times!

It helps to protect our work, helps strengthening the community and helps getting money out of illegal usage you would have probably never came across yourself.

I don't like watermarks, but they are the only good solution against theft apart from not posting your photos at all.

[ief]

speaking of putting pictures on facebook:

Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how we share your content through your privacy (http://www.facebook.com/privacy/) and application (http://www.facebook.com/editapps.php) settings. In order for us to use certain types of content and provide you with Facebook, you agree to the following:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy (http://www.facebook.com/privacy/) and application (http://www.facebook.com/editapps.php) settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it).
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).:eek:

[.:MAD]

seen a few photos of mine runing the web or on local skate events i get pissed and started doing the water marks ,good post i upload low ress 600x400 images with my small watermark on the side lower chance for other use than web

[Karl Johnston]

I never bother watermarking, i figure if someone can figure out how to print one of my shots off the web with the quality reduced as it is then they deserve a poor quality print as a result.

Or whatever..the way I see it they can just turn around and scan the finished prints themselves and reproduce at their leisure, anyway, so why bother?

No lab will print at that size, and I doubt they have the equipment to do so themselves.

I register every image on my site, too, so theoretically I could sue for infringement if I ever found one used without permission, somewhere. There's revenue right there! :lol:

[Supradedupra]

I hate when people steal my photos. I google my name every now and again, and I find my work in the darnedest places advertising for people.

So, I send them a nice little e-mail:

Dear So and So,

It has come to my attention that you have been using one of my photographs unauthorized on your website. I am writing you to ask where I should send the invoice for the use of my photo.

Here is the url to the usage on your site:
(I put the hyperlink here)

In my invoice, I have already included a proof of the photo.

Thank you in advance,
Elliott McCaskill

Freelance Photographer
www.ermphotography.com
ermphotography@gmail.com


It either results in them taking down the photo, or myself turning some revenue from it :).

[Kendal]

What do you guys use for adding the watermarks? Is there a program that will watermark a whole batch of photos at the same time, with a watermark in the same place on all of them? Thanks.

[Kendal]

If you post photos on Facebook and don't want a bunch of people you don't know
looking at them, then make the album private, good grief its not that hard. Hopefully
the people looking at them will be your "Friends" and people that you know, would'nt steal
them anyway. Just my thoughts :)

I think a lot of people just don't understand that it's theft of any sort. I recently took a load of photos at a party ... I uploaded the photos to facebook, but with very low quality, and put a link on my site saying that people could buy any pictures they wanted from that link. A relative of mine was sent a moonpig birthday card, using some of the said photographs, by a friend of mine ... only all the photos looked dreadful because of the poor quality when printed out ... I actually found it very funny, and told my friend she should either have bought the actual photographs or talked to me so I could have supplied her good quality images.

Several other people copied the photographs and put them on their own facebook sites. It was quite an interesting exercise.

[The_Rural_Juror]

Heres mine. I can't be bothered to do anything fancy. :lol:

http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq83/pleasedontstealmyphotos/GiraffeSmall.jpg

[DDCSD]

What do you guys use for adding the watermarks? Is there a program that will watermark a whole batch of photos at the same time, with a watermark in the same place on all of them? Thanks.

I've used Fast Stone Resizer in the past. Works fairly well.

http://www.faststone.org/FSResizerDetail.htm

My web hosts all add watermarks now, so I don't have to bother doing it.

[bildeb0rg]

I have no problem with "ruining" a pic if it means they think I'm serious about keeping my pics