To Watermark or Not To Watermark

[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-sheet...aphers-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)

[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.



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!

Digimarc offers a digitally embedded watermark that is not visible to the eye, but can be extracted using a free digimarc reader add-on. 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