Now I know why you guys bicker about someone messing with your watermarks!

I posted the attached file from a christmas party and put my watermark on it ( on facebook) I have nothing against people copying or saving my picture BUT i was just irritated that someone will crop adjust and etc etc.. NOW i know everyone's headache when this happens.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

here's another one they had fun with.. I'm soo irritated, BUT whatever at least they liked the picture I shared with them.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Send them a DMCA takedown notice.

Also...maybe you should have cropped out the chair first and then put your watermark on it. Or make it harder to crop out - put it top right and use a logo not a long string of text. Then to crop it out they would have to cut out heads.

I'd be more annoyed that someone had messed with the levels, exposure etc tbh. You've delivered art and they've painted it a different colour.

Oh, and don't expect repeat business from that, just tell them to take it down. It only makes you look bad.

'I'm more annoyed about the FACT that whenever someone will ask about who took those photos they will say it was ME.

chrisandaivi wrote in post #13503596
'I'm more annoyed about the FACT that whenever someone will ask about who took those photos they will say it was ME.

I had that happen with some family wedding pics. The bride did a total hack effects job on a shot, since so many people knew I was the wedding photographer I was worried that they might think I did that.

Numenorean wrote in post #13503519
Send them a DMCA takedown notice.

Also...maybe you should have cropped out the chair first and then put your watermark on it. Or make it harder to crop out - put it top right and use a logo not a long string of text. Then to crop it out they would have to cut out heads.

Yeah i should have cropped out the chair in the first place-- I batched all the pictures of the party and did not really looked at each photos.

If theyre paying you good then let them do whatever the hell they want. Display the real version on your portfolio and move on. Photos will get murdered no matter what, and those who respect the art behind photography will respect the money they put behind it to not manipulate what the photographer intended.

On the other hand, you can do a lot better. With that first photo, their crop looks better than yours for example. You shouldve had the guy in the left more inside the frame and took the chair out, and fixed the white balance.

Be glad they cropped your watermark out on the photos they made look like crap. You need to improve your watermark also. Its neither legible nor pleasing to look at. You dont need to distract them with it by putting it over her thigh, and you don't need a copyright symbol, it's copywritten the instant you take the shot, especially if you have your camera burn the author info into the image. The main goal for watermarking should be for others to find you, so you can get more business - nothing else. In todays world, a watermark isn't going to stop a thief from stealing your photo - which, in this case, clearly isn't going to happen anyway.

Just like i said I never looked at all the pictures. I just batched it and put it up so peeps can see the photos online. I wasn't worried about someone stealing the picture, I'm just stating the fact that now i know how it feels when someone manipulates or does something to your photo.

thedcmule2 wrote in post #13503659
.....and you don't need a copyright symbol, it's copywritten the instant you take the shot, especially if you have your camera burn the author info into the image.

This is all true. However, having a copyright message on images means that people can't claim they didn't know it was copyrighted should you ever feel the need to go to court (such as in a case where the person pinching the image is selling it or using it for their business). Penalties are more severe and damages larger in a case of wilful infringement than they are in a case of ignorant infringement.

Further more, if you are in the USA, removal of a copyright notice is a offence carrying a fine of up to $2500 for each instance (http://www.copyright.g​ov/title17/92chap5.htm​l#506 clause (d)).

The way they destroyed the image, be glad they removed your watermark. You wouldn't want people to think it was your work. +1 on sending a DCMA

Dan Marchant wrote in post #13505223
This is all true. However, having a copyright message on images means that people can't claim they didn't know it was copyrighted should you ever feel the need to go to court (such as in a case where the person pinching the image is selling it or using it for their business). Penalties are more severe and damages larger in a case of wilful infringement than they are in a case of ignorant infringement.

Further more, if you are in the USA, removal of a copyright notice is a offence carrying a fine of up to $2500 for each instance (http://www.copyright.g​ov/title17/92chap5.htm​l#506 clause (d)).

I'm curious about this.....

I don't actually put a (C) or "Copyright" on my watermark, it's just my logo/business name. Does that count as a copyright notice or should I add a (C) thing in there?

I shoot youth sports and I post game photos up on Facebook. When I do, I fully expect that the kids (and parents) will wreak all kinds of havoc on the photos. Just consider anything that you post on Facebook to be fair game because that's basically what it is. If you don't want people to put their own spin on it, don't post it on FB.

Numenorean wrote in post #13508535
I'm curious about this.....

I don't actually put a (C) or "Copyright" on my watermark, it's just my logo/business name. Does that count as a copyright notice or should I add a (C) thing in there?

According to the law, there is a specific definition of what the copyright notice should be (and "(C)" does not qualify--you have to use the proper symbol or spell the word out). However, the law doesn't require the copyright notice at all.

There haven't been any court challenges on this that I've heard of, but conceivably someone might try to argue that using a "wrong" notice was confusing: "Well, gee, yerhoner, I thought that C in parenthesis meant 'Creative Commons'--I looked it up in the copyright law and didn't see anything about a C in parenthesis. He got me confooosed. That makes me innocent, right?"

So I would recommend that if you add a notice at all, be sure you're doing it as defined by the law.