Using a Watermark / Copyright

I'm new to both this fine site and photography so I was wondering if you guys could clear something up.

On some of the photographs shared on P.O.T.N watermarks are included but not on others. I suppose my questions are:

1) Why use a watermark - do you automatically retain copyright?
2) Is it necessary when uploading any and all images onto the web?
3) What is the easiest way to add a watermark and is there a program to add them in batches to all my photos?

Watermarks are typically used by people for a couple reasons:

First, a professional/commercia​l photog can have good reason to "protect" images from being copied and used, either because of the nature of the content or simply because the photos are the source of the photog's income and can't be just given away. If the photog has an interest in "sharing" the photos either on a web photo site or on a forum such as POTN, then using a watermark can hinder a person from grabbing and using that photo in some way that could infringe on the photog's needed use of the photo.

Other photogs may use watermarks even if they are not using the photos in a professional/commercia​l way for similar reasons -- they "own" the photos, the photos represent "intellectual/artistic property", and for others to "assume ownership" of the photos is at least unethical and, if used for profit, can actually violate copyright laws. Potentially, even an amateur can hope to sell a photo here and there, but it that photo becomes "public property" than the potential of that can decrease, so the photog might use a watermark to deter that possible misuse.

All that being said, there are counter-remarks about the usefulness of watermarks. For one thing, the photog will, presumably, retain the full-resolution photo files and only post images that have been resized for Web viewing which would not be good for prints of any size larger than, say, a 4x6 or a 5x7 without being seriously degraded in print quality, and the idea of someone getting "serious use" of an imaged resized to such a small resolution is, well, a consideration.

And, when you are sharing photos in a place such as POTN, the value of that sharing can be diminished by an obtrusive watermark to the degree that your "audience", other POTN members, may just ignore the photo and move on.

But, some people look for a compromise by placing a watermark that shows a very "light touch" (typically a very low opacity) and often in a place on the image that doesn't diminish the overall visible imact of the image.

Then, the problem remains that a watermark can be "photoshopped" out of the image, and that is the difficulty that people just have to deal with -- if someone has the skills to edit out a watermark, and has the motivation and is willing to spend the time to do this to an image that has at most say a 1MegaPixel resolution, well, there's just not much one can do...

As to POTN "rules", there is no rule -- you can use watermarks or not, it's personal preference. Sometimes if you use an "obtrusive" watermark, people may comment, but that's opinion, not "policy"...

But there is one instance where a watermark can run into difficulties, and that's if you enter some kind of contest/competition. Some contests specify "no watermarks" as a condition, which is their right, and for other more casual types of competitions, it may just be stated that watermarks may have a detrimental affect on the judging -- again, it's their right, no matter how much someone might complain.

I personally don't use watermarks. I don't shoot professionally. I have been rarely paid for photographing certain things but it never is the type of thing that watermarks would have been useful for. And, for shoots that shouldn't be "public", well, I keep them in password-protected folders on my Web host and so they aren't public! If I occasionally "share" a photo in a place like POTN, well, I am risking some kind of something, but then I still only am sharing a very low-res image, not a high quality multi-megapixel image.

But that's just me...

In addition to what Tony has posted:
Tutorial to Create a Bordered Watermark Action

How to watermark a ton of photos?

Most later versions of PS will allow you to automate the process with an Action. I know you can do it with PS7. If you have PSCS, see the Russell Brown video in post #11:
Quick and Easy 'Watermark'

Copyrighting event photos?

EXIF info
You might also think about placing your © info in the EXIF of your images: In PS, that's File > Info. Be aware that there are several areas of that dialog box that you should enter info into, & that you can save that info from that shot & recall (load) it when you need it.
You need to use "Save As", rather than "Save For Web" to keep the info with the image.

Most later versions of PS will allow you to automate the process with an Action. I know you can do it with PS7. If you have PSCS, see the Russell Brown video in post #11:
Quick and Easy 'Watermark'

If you're using Lightroom, make sure you untick the "Minimize embedded metadata" box.
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=10589575&p​ostcount=3

This can then be read with any exif reader. It's a good idea to keep that EXIF info in your images even if you don't add to it because then people here can help you if they can see what camera settings you used for an image. Including the info does slightly increase the file size of an image, though.

Or use this: ExifTool by Phil Harvey - Read, Write and Edit Meta Information!
http://www.sno.phy.que​ensu.ca/~phil/exiftool​/#supported

FxIF :: Firefox EXIF reader using "Properties".
https://addons.mozilla​.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5673

ExifTool by Phil Harvey - Read, Write and Edit Meta Information!
http://www.sno.phy.que​ensu.ca/~phil/exiftool​/#supported

Safari 5 has an Exif reader "Extension" available from the Extension Gallery.

Jeffrey Friedl's Exif viewer

Alan Raskin's Exif Viewer

Copyrights for dummies

Tony, overall your answer was excellent. It addressed the practical and social considerations. Well done.

I have a couple comments. Not directed at you, but as they apply to the points mentioned...

tonylong wrote in post #13117872
And, when you are sharing photos in a place such as POTN, the value of that sharing can be diminished by an obtrusive watermark to the degree that your "audience", other POTN members, may just ignore the photo and move on.

But, some people look for a compromise by placing a watermark that shows a very "light touch" (typically a very low opacity) and often in a place on the image that doesn't diminish the overall visible imact of the image.

I debated this for quite awhile, and eventually decided to place watermarks on my photos. I have been chastised for it from members here, and I understand that people here aren't likely to steal them, but virtually everything I post here is also intended for my website where I do feel the need for watermarks. I do NOT feel the need to make a second copy sans watermark just to placate the few here who feel the need to be offended by it. I will make the one copy and post it both places.

Having said that, mine is a bit more intrusive, I'll admit. I have been kicking around the idea of redoing mine and making it less intrusive.

tonylong wrote in post #13117872
Then, the problem remains that a watermark can be "photoshopped" out of the image, and that is the difficulty that people just have to deal with -- if someone has the skills to edit out a watermark, and has the motivation and is willing to spend the time to do this to an image that has at most say a 1MegaPixel resolution, well, there's just not much one can do...

At this point I stop worrying completely. Because, a) most people who are prone to steal photos aren't that good at Photoshop, and b) if they are that good, short of not posting at all, there's only so much a person can do.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #13119082
Tony, overall your answer was excellent. It addressed the practical and social considerations. Well done.

Thanks! I tend to be "Long-winded" in posts where I'm trying to gove a thorough/comprehensive answer!

And there we have a view of the diverse nature of the POTN/photography community! There is no "one way" of doing things, and we need to realize this and accept it!

Sorry you got criticized, but, well, some people "speak their minds" even if they aren't so open-minded!

Now I do like the idea of toning down an "intrusive" watermark.

There are some very accomplished photogs here who actually sell work, but who take the "light touch" approach to a watermark. It's there, but when they post an image what "communicates" is the quality of the image -- the watermark is only secondary.

So, I'd spend some time checking out the various photo sharing areas to note watermarks that minimally detract, but are still real watermarks that can effectively drive off the folks who may be up to no good!

And then, like I said in my post, watermarking could disqualify you from some competitions, or, in a more informal competitions, some individual judges may give lower marks for a watermark.

Oh well, that's just the way it can be...

True enough, people can be too lazy as well as unskilled. And, when it's a low-res Web image, why bother?

The few uses of saving an image from the Web that I'm aware of are so limited due to the small resolution -- even a screensaver, which I imagine is pretty common and not against any law, has to be blown up if you want it to fill your screen, otherwise why bother? Other than that you get someone posting it on their own website (which, depending on the use, could be perfectly legal) or printing a little 4x6, which again can be perfectly legal. So, if you don't want to "share" in those ways, a watermark is the logical way to go.

tonylong wrote in post #13119403
And then, like I said in my post, watermarking could disqualify you from some competitions, or, in a more informal competitions, some individual judges may give lower marks for a watermark.

I've never included a watermark on a photo submitted for a competition.

I did get a comment recently that said (paraphrasing), "I'd like it if it weren't for the watermark.".

I translated that to, "I'd like it if it weren't for the watermark.", as that was the only part I was seeking feedback.

On the software side - I use TSR watermarking software. It's free and it's easy. I don't have Photoshop, so I wanted a "free" option, as I'm a little bit tight with cash during this current period :P

Z...

photoguy6405 wrote in post #13119082
I debated this for quite awhile, and eventually decided to place watermarks on my photos. I have been chastised for it from members here, and I understand that people here aren't likely to steal them, but virtually everything I post here is also intended for my website where I do feel the need for watermarks. I do NOT feel the need to make a second copy sans watermark just to placate the few here who feel the need to be offended by it. I will make the one copy and post it both places.

I try not to put any photo of mine on the web without a watermark, even if that watermark is small. For me, an obtrusive watermark really does take away from your enjoyment of the image. My watermark doesn't stop people from cloning/cropping it out, but rather attempts to inform people that the image is in fact intellectual property, and cannot be used without permission. That, and if they do crop/clone it out, it provides proof against pure ignorance.

That's my philosophy, anyways...