Why watermark your images?

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but heck, it can be discussed again!

Anyway, I noticed a number of members here post images with obtrusive watermarks through them. I can't help but wonder why.

For starters, the watermark can be digitally removed. The only way to overcome that is to include a more obtrusive watermark. But there's a trade-off between presenting the image and how obtrusive the watermark is.

Furthermore, if posting an image here for C&C, there is no point to including the watermark at all. It simply ruins the presentation of the image.

So I'm wondering why some members bother with watermarks in the first place?

paranoia

honestly, most of the watermarked images I see I'd never ina millions years think about downloading or using.

if someone wants it, they'll take it. usually its going to be by someone you'll never know and will never know know about. its usually not done by your clients, and if it is done, what can they actually do with it, interpolate it 100 times?

I like to see my name on them

As simple as that....

I guess I like the way the paintings look when the artist puts his/her name on it. I'm not an artist, but since I like the way they look... I do it.

I don't do it to prevent somebody from 'stealing' my pictures, for two reasons:

- They are not worth the trouble. There are billions of pictures in the internet that are better than mine.

- Nothing is safe in the internet anyway.

Leo.

Trying to remove a watermark is possible but it is certainly going to make the person that has grabbed the copy to work very hard at doing so. Now I agree with you that if you are putting up an image for critique and you have the big word "proof" that takes a great deal of screen real estate, it doesn't make much sense.

I personally put a very small watermark right in the middle of the image. This is done mostly for clients where I want/need them to come back to me for the printed version of the image. If they are just scenics that I am sharing I normally don't apply this. I have been toying with putting my logo in the bottom right hand corner. This has my domain name (which isn't up yet but will be shortly). This is two fold, one it does remind people that this is an image that is owned by someone else and secondly it will remind people where to go to see the rest of them. If they really want they can crop it off and people will do that.

I've seen some watermarks that so obtrusive that you really can't see the image. I try to make it so they are going to have to work at it if they want to steal it but at the same time they can clearly see the attributes of the image.

Each photographer is going to decide what is in his/her best interests in trying to protect their images. I don't think that we should blame them for that.

Have to agree with Sheldon a 100%, especially with what he said in his last paragraph.

I put them on so that my name is attached to the image. If someone likes it they can see who did it without having to do much research.

I don't watermark them to protect them really. At the end of the day I do them for clients or myself and if other people decide they like them, then good for them.

i never watermark...i just use low res shots for clients, and in here low res so i can keep them down and not take up 3 pages worth with a huge photo lol
Personally - i would NEVER in a million years want to steal an image, even if it was the best photo in the world and if i had the opportunity - i could claim it my own? NEVER - i would hate being praised for something i never did. SO i guess it's just habit for some people?

Del

Personally I treat it as a free advert

I have also had photos copied in the past and printed in match day progs... So I try and discourage this.

I watermark mine so people know who took the picture incase they want to contact me.

Depends. Usually, it's paranoia, for good reason. If your shots are good enough, you're foolish to post them at any usable resolution without a very obtrustive watermark. Most of the stuff here falls at web resolution, so posting without a watermark isn't as big of a deal. Still, it can suck to see your photo ripped off and posted elsewhere online with misleading information or outright intentional misattribution. Sticking your name in a photo not only gives you free advertising, it makes sure that unless someone wants to take time to remove your watermark, people know where an image came from.

As someone who knows a guy who's photos were ripped off in this manner and circulated all over the world via emails, web boards, and eventually magazines, contests, el-cheapo stock agencies, and even a pilot's manual for the government of Australia... I can understand why one would watermark.

I watermark b/c of people who yank my images. I really don't care as they are small sizes but it's free advertisement so that folks can check out my webpage and contact me if they want. And yes, some have taken my images for use on their myspace and what not. Nothing major, but it's still free advertisement.

I make my living selling prints online to the college age. I have sold about 1500 prints now, but I had HUGE problem with people just downloading the samples and printing them out. Thusly, i needed to put something that was uncool on the photo. My sales have actually increased since putting the ugly watermark. Less people are steeling and more people are sucking it up and paying me my $100 haha

Yours,
Rian

think of it as a free commercial.But if you don't like it, don't put it. after that it is your problem if someone steals your photo.
I know one lady who stole photo from the net and presented as hers, after they putted that photo in the calendar, some people regognize and the whole printed edition was withdrawn from sale. She was trown out from the photoclub.
Someone will steal your photo, better to put a little watermark.

For my own protection, really. And not from printing, but from being claimed by someone else as their own. My stuff may not be top-shelf, but I have seen some crappy stuff that people have swiped and the photog found out about. I'd just rather have a stamp on it and be done with it.

It is funny how its 'debated' on a board like this. I would think, of all places, a photography board would embrace something like this as to try to protect your work from being claimed as someone else's.

MichelleM wrote:
My stuff may not be top-shelf, but I have seen some crappy stuff that people have swiped and the photog found out about. I'd just rather have a stamp on it and be done with it.

Actually, I took a look at your gallery... your pictures are really good!

Leo.