This could get heated...to watermark or not to watermark?

[Mike Buckley]

I do not think that finally recognising an inner known truth is the same as changing your mind.

Are you going to back me up when I use that argument to avoid sending $50 to Matt's favorite charity?

[William W]

It's one of those [questions], along with UV Filter v No UV Filter, etc that has folks firmly entrenched on one side or the other and no amount of heat generated on here or elsewhere will leads to any change in attitude.

“What, all my pretty chickens, and their dam,
At one fell swoop?”

I:

• don't watermark my images
• selectively use Protection Filters
• very rarely stack Filters
• mostly always use a Lens Hood
• now use Canon DSLR; but used to use Nikon, Pentax and Minolta 135 format SLRs
• still use film, but not often, mainly 645 and 4x5
• do use P&S / bridge cameras
• use both Prime and Zoom Lenses on my DSLRs
• use both APS-C and 135 Format DSLRs
• don't usually use Continuous Shooting
• use almost always Centre point AF
• do Focus and Recompose

WW

[Adrian]

We use a lot of imagery for commercial purposes, usually to illustrate articles. Where possible we generate our own.

I am in two minds on the watermark front. If it is discreet and small in a corner, then it helps to identify and credit the photographer and I have no issue with it at all. Indeed I see it positively as I often want t know who the photographer is.

If I have paid for the shoot I will always make it a condition that my business owns the images and has copyright, NOT the photographer. This is a written contractual contract condition from which we never vary.

Watermarks which disfigure the image are invariably annoying enough to put me off even looking at the image. I see it as pointless and arrogant, and especially inappropriate for internet posting. I used t see it a lot when I was involved with professional motor sport and professional equestrian support when photographers were trying to sell prints. I would not engage a photographer again who did that. The debate will rumble on forever.

Adrian

[pnodrog]

Are you going to back me up when I use that argument to avoid sending $50 to Matt's favorite charity?

Depends - If I get named as the charity I will rapidly change my mind and will of course claim an extra $50 for doing so. But it is Donald not Matt who will be making the demand.

[Ady]

If I have paid for the shoot I will always make it a condition that my business owns the images and has copyright, NOT the photographer. This is a written contractual contract condition from which we never vary.

Hi Adrian,

I'm curious how that goes down with the photographers you hire.

A fair proportion of the work I do is commercial and it is always stated very clearly that I (as the photographer) retain copyright on all images. I work on the basis of negotiating a fee that includes the shoot and a licence covering the rights required at the time, any additional use not covered in the initial agreement will be licenced separately. I am perfectly happy to provide a very relaxed licence with rights that allow for most uses, with the obvious exception of re-selling/licencing to third parties. I offer the option of exclusivity, with the exception that I may use those images myself to promote my business. Though naturally the greater the rights the higher the fee.

I was asked once if I'd surrender all rights (including copyright), but after I suggested a start point for negotiating the fee they never asked again, though they did come back with more work so they couldn't have been that put out.

I don't make any particular effort to police the use of the images I provide but the agreement is there in black and white just in case anyone decides to take excessive liberties.

Is there any particular reason you insist on owning the copyright rather than negotiating an appropriate licence/set of rights, and do you expect/are you willing to pay more for ownership?

Cheers,
Ady

[FlyingSquirrel]

I've just read the entire thread for the first time from the beginning. Thank you all for your input. I really appreciate the advice and viewpoints. I also got some goods laughs from this thread as well

I do want to point out that I was in no way trying to get any kind of brawl started; I really did hope to hear something that would sway me either way, alas Donald's infinite wisdom was confirmed; unfortunately I am still on the fence about the issue.

I owe it to you all to let you know my general thoughts on why I was asking about this. I guess my main desire is to let people know who created the photo (myself, of course!) so that they can find my twitter or possibly a soon to be website, etc. Yet at the same time that I want to inform people who took the photo, I also have similar thoughts as some have mentioned regarding the way watermarks "ruin" images; at times I have caught myself judging the photographer as slightly arrogant, though I do think that is somewhat unfair of an assumption. I've seen some terrible watermarks (and on some terrible photos at times) but I've seen some that are very unobtrusive. Either way, I am fearful that people will look negatively on my photos (or even me) if they have a watermark, yet I would like exposure (no pun intended). Unfortunately the watermark seems to be a double edged sword.

Mike, sorry that I didn't take you up on the charity thing; nothing personal of course! You are a gentleman and a scholar!

[Inkanyezi]

If I have paid for the shoot I will always make it a condition that my business owns the images and has copyright, NOT the photographer. This is a written contractual contract condition from which we never vary.

Sorry to pee on your parade Adrian. Such a contract condition is void. Period.

[NorthernFocus]

The only place I use watermarks is on the dog agility event proofs that I post. And the watermark is large but subtle and is right across the middle of the image. The reason I do so is because one of the formats I offer for sale is a web resolution digital download. I sell quite a few of those which are actually quite profitable. There is no production nor shipping cost and they don't require any additional work since I'm simply selling the proofs. Which is why I watermark them, to prevent computer savvy folk from simply copying the proof and posting it on their Facebook page.

Same as mentioned by a previous post, in forums like this I won't even comment on photos that are posted with watermarks that obscure a significant portion of the image. If it is small and placed in a corner like a signature that's fine, but not if it substantially alters the image.

[rpcrowe]

I may be wrong but, I suspect that many logos or watermarks emanate from the vanity of some photographers rather than any realistic expectation that the image will be ripped off.

However, if I were shoting weddings again, I would want to make it hard for people to just copy my images and do their own printing. This is true regarding dog show images also...

[Inkanyezi]

My images have CC licensing conditions in their metadata. Anyone can use them privately, even post on the web, provided they are intact and credit given. When using them privately, they may be altered, but it is a violation of copyright law to alter the metadata. I wouldn't be particularly upset if someone uses my pictures beyond licensing conditions, but if a commercial actor does that, I will send an invoice and enforce if necessary.

I never put a watermark, but there is info in the metadata on how to contact me, should anyone want to use an image commercially. In case I find an image of mine stripped of the metadata, I would contact the person that posted it and politely ask how he got hold of the picture; there's always the possibility that someone else stripped the EXIF, and on some forums images are shrunk automagically and stripped of metadata. So far I haven't seen this happen.

I often post high resolution pictures, and I know that a few people use images of mine at a desktop backdrop.

I find watermarks degrading, but I think an inobtrusive signature is OK. However, I recommend storing copyright and contact information in the metadata. When I sell a picture for commercial use, one condition is that some important metadata posts shall not be altered. The metadata then will contain the name of the company that bought the right to publish the image.

[NorthernFocus]

I may be wrong but, I suspect that many logos or watermarks emanate from the vanity of some photographers...

This is accurate by definition. If one fears that their work will be stolen/used that implies a belief that it is worthy of said theft/usage

[Ady]

Apologies Matt, I got distracted from the subject of your original post.

I currently maintain a small client base (due to time pressure) by word of mouth so I don't tend to post images openly to advertise. However when I share images with potential clients or post my own personal images I don’t watermark. I will make use of metadata for identifying the source and client in commercial images.

To a certain extent my commercial images are so specific to the client that it's unlikely anyone would want them for anything else. When it comes to my own images I only ever post at a size that is only any good for on screen viewing (or a very small print).

My reasoning is that if someone is going to be happy with a low res image for on screen use then they aren't going to pay for a high rez version or a large print anyway, so it's no real skin off my nose.

If I found someone using an image commercially I'd consider taking legal action, but unless someone is really taking the p*ss it's probably not worth the hassle in terms of costing far more money (in time if nothing else) than any potential return. I have had issues with people using my written material online without permission and on those occasions the words have been taken down after I've politely requested they desist. I don't know if someone generating revenue from an image would be so compliant but you never know.

Cheers,
Ady

[Glenn NK]

I have changed my mind. I now prefer Nikon (Oh God, please forgive me for uttering such blasphemy!)

But that will change too.

Comments on copyrighting/watermarking:

1) copyrighting may provide a sense of security, but it's a false sense. On another forum, there is a recent thread wherein several members complained that "so-and-so" was using their images without permission on another site, and not only that, the transgressor implied in his response that he could use them for "educational" purposes.

2) watermarking may provide some security, but if it's in a location that doesn't affect the integrity of the image, then it may well be easy to remove.

I have nothing against watermarking, but will not take a stand on this either way.

As Donald seems to have implied, it's a win-less argument, hence pointless.

Glenn

[drjuice]

I finally got a watermark I like by taking my signature and making the pen width greater. I put it in the bottom R corner as I would if selling somebody a matted print and writing my signature with the circle-c and year date. It's always done in a contrasting "color", either black or white, except for sports photos where it usually appears in one of the two school colors for that school. For example, U of Washington is always purple or gold, whichever contrasts better, U of Florida is always orange or blue, UCLA is always powder blue or yellow, which do not have the greatest contrast, etc.

When I post here or to other sites where, as somebody said, there's a greater appreciation of the copyright laws, I don't generally watermark.

And, just to make things clear, I've been using this for my "protection process" since L-O-N-G before this thread started.

I'm jes' sayin'....

virginia

[William W]

Sorry to pee on your parade Adrian. Such a contract condition is void. Period.

How so?

WW

[John Morton]

Oh and by the way, even a well thought out and placed watermark can be removed (I firmly believe this, just look at some of the unbelievable PP that has been presented on this site) so I don't follow the logic that it protects images. Only copyright can do that and even then I would think that YOU have to recognize violations and issue complaints that your copyright has been sullied.

Yes certainly a well placed watermark can be easily removed; but that is the point: if a watermark has been removed, that indicates INTENT on the part of the person who removed it. This is the difference between someone going into a building that has an unlocked door, and someone breaking into the same building when the door is locked: in neither case the person belongs in the building, but it is much easier to demonstrate the intentions of the person who broke in.

[Inkanyezi]

How so?

WW

Void as in void. You cannot acquire all aspects of copyright. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make a contract that can be enforced?

[John Morton]

Void as in void. You cannot acquire all aspects of copyright. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make a contract that can be enforced?

One legal exception to copyright resting with the photographer is "work for hire"; for instance, when a photographer is employed to take photographs for a news agency, the copyright for the photographs resides with the news agency.

[William W]

Void as in void. You cannot acquire all aspects of copyright. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make a contract that can be enforced?

I still don't understand what you mean.

Perhaps, instead of merely repeating the words "void as in void" you could expand on your answer?

To assist your answer and so that other interested parties who might be also be confused as to what you mean - here is my perspective, which might provide a framework onto which you could respond - thanks.



I understand what "void" means in regard to a contract.

But I also have been a signatory to contracts for more than 30 years which assign the copyright to a party or entity other than that which the copyright would reside, if no assignment were made.

I know of no impediment to making such an assignment of copyright in said contract: and I don't understand why such an assignment of copyright would make said contract, void.

WW

[William W]

One legal exception to copyright resting with the photographer is "work for hire"; for instance, when a photographer is employed to take photographs for a news agency, the copyright for the photographs resides with the news agency.

Tit Bits: -

There are many exceptions to Copyright NOT residing with the Photographer: it depends upon the different laws in various Countries.

Also, in Australia, (as one example) the example of persons in the employment of a news agency is not as clear cut as you have described.

WW