Name and Copyright info on images?

[neil_r]

I have never marked my pictures with a watermark/copyright notice, but I notice these appearing more and more often on pictures being posted here. I save my pics for the web with a resolution of 75 pixels/inch with the longest side set to 800 pixels. This makes the picture pretty much unprintable.

Is this marking an affectation or is there a sound commercial reason for it?

Cheers

N

[Littlenose]

I just post the pics with my URL on simply so if somoene see's it then they can see where it's come from... as is stated on my webpage, i let my pics go free to use as long as they're unaltered, so i'm not really trying to gain anything other than maybe the odd visitor to my website. And when the odd one of those makes comment... it's nice.

in short, i guess it's a case of bouying up one of my hobbies.

oh, when i have time / remember i also try to put the URL faded quite out a fair amount.

[tommykjensen]

I do it because I have experienced people directlinking to my photos without permission. Then at least the viewers will know were the photo is coming from.

I also only post images with max 800 pixels on the longest edge.

The copyright notice is purely for information, if someone wants to steal the photo they will and they can easily edit the copyright out no matter how it is done.

I have on a few occations commented on big disturbing watermarks some users put right smack in the middle of the photo. I think it destroys the photo for no reason at all.

[Curtis N]

I have on a few occations commented on big disturbing watermarks some users put right smack in the middle of the photo. I think it destroys the photo for no reason at all.It destroys the photo so people won't be tempted to try to steal it, and if they do, everyone who sees it will know it's stolen.

I agree it looks pretty tacky, though.

[tommykjensen]

It destroys the photo so people won't be tempted to try to steal it, and if they do, everyone who sees it will know it's stolen.


Nope anybody with moderate experience with photoshop can edit a watermark like that out if they want to. So the watermark have only one effect and that is to desroy the photo for everyone also those that do not want to steal it but just want to look at it.

[Rob612]

I'll do what I can to save my images. Very small, with a copyright notice, and at least for the inexperienced user, handled by a flash script. I must say that the size is the most efficient deterrent.

[Curtis N]

anybody with moderate experience with photoshop can edit a watermark like that out if they want to. I wouldn't have a clue, and neither would the vast majority of would-be pic stealers. Most people don't even have photoshop.

Like any other theft deterrent, it isn't fool-proof. But it's effective enough to protect a lot of photographer income.

[neil_r]

But it's effective enough to protect a lot of photographer income.

That is an interesting point because I see these marks on photographs that I doubt very much are ever going to be sold. I can understand it if you are posting proofs to attract sales but if you are not a professional and are not attempting to sell your work, why disfigure it with a big © notice.

N

[Curtis N]

That is an interesting point because I see these marks on photographs that I doubt very much are ever going to be sold. I can understand it if you are posting proofs to attract sales but if you are not a professional and are not attempting to sell your work, why disfigure it with a big © notice.I was commenting on Tommy's referrence to the large, disfiguring watermarks in the middle of photos (they might say something like "PROOF"). I've only seen them used on photographer's sites where the only intent is to sell prints (from a wedding, for instance), and I agreed that it can look tacky.

With regard to copyright notices, haven't you ever looked at a photo and wondered who took it? Painters have been signing their paintings for centuries. I usually don't mind as long as it's not too gaudy. Sometimes they are a bit overdone.

[Medalta]

Recently I have started to do a weekly email to a group of people from my address book. The “Subject Line” is Picture of the Week. All it contains is an image like you see here.



My reason for doing this is to share some of my photos with friends but also to keep the existence of my company fresh in people’s minds, I think this is a good way to do it. Last week was the second mail out and 4 of the recipients emailed back asking if I took the picture. I thought this would be obvious :confused: . . . but I guess not. ;)



I need opinions on the format of the marks I have placed on the images. Should I be adding my name at the bottom of the image or is this over the top?



I would appreciate your preference of the two or if you think another format would be more appropriate, what would you suggest.

A:
http://www.lwsdesign.com/photoweek/IMG_5735.jpg

B:
http://www.lwsdesign.com/photoweek/vespula.jpg