To Watermark or Not To Watermark

[mal from cessnock]

I recently put some images on FB and found that my client had grabbed them without asking me if it was ok. I felt ripped off - I guess that since I put my name on the bottom right of the image it will at least assist in getting my name out there. But there's something about not asking that really bugged me. It was as if, as soon as the images were available to them - I no longer had a part to play.

So I got to thinking about it did a google search and have played with a "centred watermark" which will help to prevent clients or anybody else poaching what is not there's.

Give me you thoughts on this central example in the next 3 images and if you have a better solution let me have it! Please.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5511622371_1a55c0e228_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5060/5511622075_a3bcc221ef_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5258/5512220568_a0d9ffb3d4_b.jpg

I dropped the opacity to 50% and flow to 40% and gave the layer a luminosity blend.

Any help always appreciated :)

[ricktas]

I don't mind watermarks or where they appear on a photo. I fully understand the sad necessity of them, if posting photos on the interweb. I can look past a watermark to evaluate a photo for critique. Mal, yours work well, they cover the main subject, would be hard to remove without leaving obvious edit marks, but do not block our view of the main reason for the photo.

[markallan]

It is a great idea, although it is terrible when you cant show off your shots without the fear of someone ripping them off. I also agree with ricktas when he says that he can look past an obvious watermark to evaluate a photo. I feel it is a must now. I am thinking about the idea of doing a similar central larger watermark for all the photos i post on the net. Interesting topic and point! I think the trick is to make sure you put your watermark in a more difficult spot to re-touch if at all possible without changing the look and effect of the photograph.
Also as a side question, What are your thoughts on the year in a watermark?? eg (markallan. 2011), dont know whether the year limits the artists work to a certain period of time?? what do you think??

Mark

[kiwi]

with facebook, only upload very low res files. People will tag them etc with a watermark or not...theere nothing you can do about that, what you can do though is make the image unprintable.

[markallan]

with facebook, only upload very low res files. People will tag them etc with a watermark or not...theere nothing you can do about that, what you can do though is make the image unprintable.

Good idea, i like your thinking
Mark

[mal from cessnock]

Make it unprintable - you may be surprised what some people will print! I used to edit a high class motorcycle club newsletter and I'd make it available to members for download as a lo res pdf and mail them a classy printed version. I'd go to a monthly meeting to present each new edition and find some clowns there with the printed pdf on crap paper! They thought I was an "expletive" when I removed printing privileges. They saw it as a rag, I saw it as a work of art, which of course it was! - lol

I spent last night viewing youtube vids on removing watermarks - something that CS5 states it can do - I don't think it's possible without leaving tell tale signs. Strange that Adobe would encourage this!?

Yes Kiwi, I've learnt about facebook, now :) and upload as few images as I can. Now I just give them a taste and hope they follow the link to my webpage.

Mark, I've been putting a date on my image tag, but I think I'm going to stop that. There's something about it that date statement which is not sitting right atm.

Rick - love your new landscapes on your website. You're exhibiting new techniques with these. Is the site one you can upload to? It's very nice but hard to read - the text is so small.

[reaction]

know that when you put a pic up on fb, you are giving them an unlimited right to reproduce that image. Nobody wants to play thru all that legalese, but better just to assume anything you put up there are 'free' for all to take.

how about put a big watermark on fb which tells them where your website is that has the same pic with a less annoying mark?
on your site you can clearly state the images are yours, no fb TOC stuff to mess you around with.

[johndom]

I can read the text, but it looks as though he needs to clean his camera!:D

[mal from cessnock]

Kewl, reaction :)

Johndom, uh?

[johndom]

The scratches! and the film grain effect!
Nice shots, despite my smartarsery.
In actually addressing your question, definetly watermark. It is in some ways a sign of proffessionalism as well as insurance. But as you pointed out some people will steal it anyway whatever you do.
If you know Brad from cessnock say Gday.

[mal from cessnock]

Johndom - hey what did jesus heal you from? Hopefully a tough in cheek tag line :)

[johndom]

A lawnmower attacked my foot. But I have since glared it into submission.:eek:

[reaction]

imho, a middle watermark is not a sign of professionalism. Name any pro-tog you admire. Go to their site. None of their photos have a watermark right in the middle.

do the middle on places like fb where ppl steal, but don't overdo it on your personal site.

[mal from cessnock]

reaction - I take your point and only use a watermark on fb - not on my website :)

[scotteffone]

imho, a middle watermark is not a sign of professionalism. Name any pro-tog you admire. Go to their site. None of their photos have a watermark right in the middle.

do the middle on places like fb where ppl steal, but don't overdo it on your personal site.

I like that idea. I was personally wandering about this because although people like ricktas can see past it I hate them! I want my image on line so it can be seen. I think after reading this thread I will watermark any photo not posted on my website and link it. I also like the idea of the watermark being the website address, something I will start doing.

Good thread!

[Alpacamike]

Unfortunately anyone with a bit of Photoshop editing knowledge can make a good job of removing your watermarks; I suppose it still deters every day clients infringing your copyright.
Alpacamike

[mal from cessnock]

Alpacamike, imho not even your average user or advanced user can remove a watermark well. Even CS5 with it's advertised "fill" tool makes a lousy job of it! Have you tried using it?

[scotteffone]

I'm assuming it would also make a civil case pretty straight forward when you show how they took your photo and removed your watermark?

[cheapcanvasprints]

Are we talking protecting what's personally yours, or protecting your business profits?

As a printing company, we sometimes get people sending us low-resolution images that have clearly been taken from some website - and yes, sometimes they have tried to remove the watermark (and the CS5 healing tools are amazingly good at removing watermarks in one click!).

Of course, we politely tell them the "quality isn't good enough" instead of saying. "we think you stole that image!" and we won't print it.

But the people doing that are the people that can't afford (or simply won't pay) for your image in the first place. So if they get a low res image printed, you're not losing any money, they get an inferior print, it won't have your name on it anyway, and you could't take them to court because it wouldn't be worth the money. So the distracting watermark doesn't actually protect your profits anyway.

IMO, it just depends on whether you're trying to protect your business, or your ego. BOTH are valid things to protect, especially when you work hard getting your name out there.

[mal from cessnock]

Good to hear from a Printer on this thread. Glad to hear you pick it up and try to discourage the print from going ahead.

I agree with you when you say the photographer wouldn't have got the job anyway and that the lo res image is worth squat and since it doesn't bear the maker's name it doesn't really matter.

For me, I began watermarking as an ego based thing (so proud of my work) but there have been occassions over the last couple of years where subjects/potential clients have ripped them from my website and that really annoys me. In some cases I would have given them to them if they had the decency to ask. So a watermark in this case may have helped save the image from poaching.

I think I have a long way to go before I am happy with any watermark I create and at the end of the day (which I'm not looking forward to) may not use them at all.

Thank you cheapcanvasprints for your input on this.

[Pup]

I watermark everything. Any photos that other people can view get watermarked being small (corners) or full. I'll let your client know all about the copy right laws that may stop them from taking your photos again. All the best mate

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[para]

I do a bit of shooting for a few sports clubs and our local road racing/mx club I sell prints etc the club has a fb page put a link there and a few of the guys ask if I could put up a few on FB so they can use them as profile pics I only load up up a 150kb-200kb version with a watermark in the corner.

[404shots]

There are a few things to help prevent theft of photos.
How did you create/apply these watermarks?
If your uploading images to FB, expect people to rip them off, watermarked or not, people will post up a watermarked photo as their DP and still take credit for it!
Best thing to do is to not worry about this happening - but to give your photos enough security that you will always have noticeable credit for the photo.

If your covering an event, such as a sporting event, watermark across the middle. Dont make it a small watermark thats hard to read, that just looks like a stack of mess. A bigger watermark with a low opacity works better then a small solid text in the middle. This should apply for all photos you post to your website also - as you said - people arent worried about quality. They will do a screen grab even if its a flash website or right click has been disabled!

If you doing a private function/event/shoot - then you can downsize your watermark. I like a small tag in the bottom right hand corner. These people hired you for the photos, you should already have your hiring fees, they arent going to pay big dollars for a photographer and rip a 1000x1000 image off fb.

And a MUST, as a final layer of security - is edit you metadata! Make sure it has all copyright info in there! and your website!

Best program I find to do all this, as well as publishing is lightroom!

[mal from cessnock]

A great post 404shots - thanks for that

[Storm]

very well said 404shots

I never liked watermarking and when I did I only ever put it in the bottom corner but after having some images "stolen" online I have had to resort to in the middle and have done now for years.

Sad that we have to but we do what we need to to protect our work.

[TwinII]

I used to watermark. I don't watermark the whole image, but if I want my name to the shot I will put my name in the corner or across the bottom. I have tended not to do is so much recently though.

[macdog]

Totally off topic but OMG I used to have both of those Mighty Max toys when I was a kid, They were the best toys ever!! You just made my day (cue nostalgia) :D

[winterstorm]

I watermark, keep it as small as possible in a corner, not to stop people from stealing them as they are going to do it anyway, but just to keep our name out there. If they remove the watermark, I dont get all fussed about it. I'll only get in a huffy if another photographer has claimed them as their own....a big no no.

[Ozspeed]

I use a watermark, but try not to make it too invasive. If your photos are up for sale, a watermark is a must have, people don't really care if the money they spent helps you maintain/ purchase equipment and without a watermark, they will just copy them if posted up on a forum.

They almost feel its their right to have the image, afterall, it is an image of them. This opens up a can of worms, so I just add it in to keep things simple.

http://www.ozspeedphotography.com/TRAKDAYZ/TRAKDAYZ-group-3-24411/i-cGTcnFf/0/L/IMG1887-L.jpg

As said before, I wouldn't want another photographer claiming your images, with a watermark, it just makes it a hassle for them to copy and mess about cropping out the watermark.

[kiwi]

Stifling, that wm is easily just cropped out

[ricktas]

Remember that AP is as safe as we can make it, to ensure your photos placed here are not 'borrowed'.

- Non members cannot access the Member Photos Forums.
- Members who join up and haven't posted to the site, cannot see the Members Photos Forums.
- Search engine bots cannot 'see' or catalogue the Members Photo Forums.
- If the mods or I notice someone join up, post and then download an attachment, we PM them and remind them of copyright.

As a photography forum, we try and ensure your photos are safe from being taken, as much as we can, whilst still letting members interact and show their work to the other members.

[Ozspeed]

True Kiwi, but if someone notices that image elsewhere after viewing it with a watermark on, I can be contacted to find out who has taken it. If its for personal use, I don't mind too much, but if someone sells it, thats another matter.

A mate of mine noticed one of my images on someones flicker site (with the watermark removed), he alerted me and I confronted them. They were truly embarrassed by their lack of etiquette.

Also, the site I upload to, protects the images so they can't be taken straight from the site.

[ricktas]

The other option is Digimarc (http://www.digimarc.com/default.asp)!

Digimarc offers a digitally embedded watermark that is not visible to the eye, but can be extracted using a free digimarc reader add-on (http://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcforImages/downloads.asp). Yes it costs you to use the digimarc embedding software, but if you are concerned about image theft, then it gives you another level of protection. Whether you pay for digimarc depends on how concerned you are.

[kiwi]

Just on this topic (sortof) you can do a reverse image search using google or use another free web search tinyeye to find your images used elsewhere

[Longshots]

Why are so few people uploading images without their own metadata attached ? While watermarking is indeed important, to upload anything without your image data is inviting trouble. You might like to do some reading on "orphan works" to understand why I say this is important.

And Tineye is good, but has very little "coverage" at present.

[Xenedis]

Why are so few people uploading images without their own metadata attached ? While watermarking is indeed important, to upload anything without your image data is inviting trouble.

What's to stop someone else simply modifying the metadata?

[Longshots]

What's to stop someone else simply modifying the metadata?

Absolutely none.

But have none there and you're opening yourself to the issue of orphan works.

If people want to learn how to protect their images this is one very important step. I'm simply pointing that out.

And yes it can be changed or removed - and the file will be modified from that date - so if you have your original with an earlier date/time then you can identify when it has been modified, and yes you can watermark as well, but people can PS it out. If you have the proof that the original metadata was there, then thats better than nothing at all. And approx 80% of images being uploaded to the net are completely without metadata.

[Xenedis]

Absolutely none.

That's why it seems, to me, be an ineffective method of protecting one's images.

It may cause the casual image thief (unaware of the ability to modify metadata, nor its presence in the first instance) to come unstuck, but someone who knows what (s)he is doing will easily get around that.


And yes it can be changed or removed - and the file will be modified from that date - so if you have your original with an earlier date/time then you can identify when it has been modified, and yes you can watermark as well, but people can PS it out.

Personally, I think the most effective method is digital watermarking.

File dates can be modified; metadata can be modified. A digital watermark, which is invisible, is more effective and I dare say a lot harder to counteract.

[ricktas]

Ultimately it is personal choice. Watermark, metadata, digital watermark, small files.

I think it depends on who you are and what your photography is to you. If you take shots with your phonecam for facebook etc, then you are most likely to not even know about copyright protection, let alone care if someone takes a copy. However if you are a serious photographer of any level, and want to control when and where your photos are used, then you have a range of options available to you to help ensure that your copyright is not breached.

There are some good arguments in this discussion and some great information on how to watermark, etc. Now it is really up to each of us individually to decide which, if any, of them we apply to our photographs.

[Longshots]

That's why it seems, to me, be an ineffective method of protecting one's images.

It may cause the casual image thief (unaware of the ability to modify metadata, nor its presence in the first instance) to come unstuck, but someone who knows what (s)he is doing will easily get around that.



Personally, I think the most effective method is digital watermarking.

File dates can be modified; metadata can be modified. A digital watermark, which is invisible, is more effective and I dare say a lot harder to counteract.

I dont disagree with you. A digital watermark is something that is more effective. No question about that at all.

But the simple fact is that if an image has no metadata, then the ongoing march of orphan works is going to have a huge impact on images that have no metadata - thats my point.

As a pro who has regularly had their work stolen, and misused, the abusers of my copyright are often too stupid or too arrogant to consider doing something as simple as changing the metadata - and bear in mind that I deliver a huge amount of images to clients over the years, and in general the licence to use those images is restricted (in theory) to the client paying me.

However I see many photographers, pros, semi, and others, who deliver images to people, or upload them and the metadata regarding the photographer or status of copyright is completely missing. And that means thats fodder to those who will claim the use of the images in the future.

Placing metadata is so ridiculously simple that its not funny. Not to do something that costs nothing in programmes like LR or PS, is madness.

So yes Digital Watermarking is the most effective - but what is the most effective really wasnt the OP's question, IMHO.

On another simple point that many dont do, I wonder how many people have their names, telephone numbers, and address installed on their cameras so that their images automatically add that metadata on every single image as its taken ? This is a one off event for the LIFE of the camera and its use. And all that needs is to install the cameras software, connect the camera, and open the software and enter all of that information via the camera software program.

Most people at all levels should be able to accomplish that without a great deal of effort.

So its not an ineffective way. My point is its free, easy to do, and yet most miss doing this because they dont know about it. And its not ineffective because its a great deal better than nothing ! Watermark within the image is then an additional step.

And without any debate, digital watermarking (which is at an extra cost) is the most effective. On that we agree completely :)

[kiwi]

Agree, the other benefit of including metadata is to allow admirers to find you

[Longshots]

Just as a BTW Xenedis - I rarely look at images on this site (time constraints), and saw a very nice seascape from you - very nice indeed. And of course I looked for the metadata - particularly who the photographer is.

Its worth noting that the OP in this topic has both watermark and their personal metadata within the examples in this topic.

I noticed that Ozspeed has no Metadata, and I'm afraid nor do you on the image I admired so much.

While I'm sure thats your personal choice, I wonder if you were aware that it was not there ?

And again the reason I raise this, is the ever increasing issue of Orphan Works.

[Xenedis]

Just as a BTW Xenedis - I rarely look at images on this site (time constraints), and saw a very nice seascape from you - very nice indeed.

Thanks Will; glad you like my work.


I noticed that Ozspeed has no Metadata, and I'm afraid nor do you on the image I admired so much.

While I'm sure thats your personal choice, I wonder if you were aware that it was not there ?


Yep. :-)

I don't specifically add extra metadata or watermarks to my images.

[Longshots]

knowing the issues of Orphan works, I'd highly reccommend that you at the very least put your name within the metadata - simple to do :) Your work - like many others- has a value :)

And if you've set up your camera in the right way, you dont need to add anything - its automatic.

One very good benefit of doing this is if you have the misfortune to have your camera stolen, its possible to see track it down using the metadata on the images after its stolen.

[Xenedis]

Thanks Will.

I appreciate your passion on this subject, but the issue of watermarking and metadata (and my non-deployment) is not something that concerns me.

In the case of my work, I have the original raw files, original raw conversion sidecar files, original Photoshop PSD files and original JPGs.

I also keep four copies of everything (including an off-site copy).

People who want to steal someone else's images are going to do so anyway, and given metadata can be as easily removed as it can be added, 'security through obscurity' is not something I'm inclined to practice.

[mal from cessnock]

I would have thought so too Kiwi