Water marking photos

[rawill]

I imagine there is a simple way to do it.
I googled the subject to see what I could find.

I found some programs I can buy to do it.
What do others do?

[dan marchant]

I used Photoshop elements to create the watermark image, although pretty much any image editor can be used to create one. I do 99.9% of my post processing in Lightroom so I use that to add the watermark as part of the export process.

[revi]

There's basically two fundamentally different ways to do what's called watermarking:
1 - you can add a visible text or logo to an image.
2 - you add invisible information to the image, and that information stays detectable even after resizing, format changes etc. (not sure about cropping)

You can do "1-" with any editor that allows you to combine images or add to an image (so PS, Gimp, Lightroom, Digikam, and a myriad others)
"2-" requires specialised software and a fee per image iirc.

I rarely feel the need to add a signature/watermark to an image, but if I want to do it, my basic editor (Digikam) easily allows me to add a text at a given spot in an image.
So I use that in the last export, with conversion to final size and format, sharpening, adding metadata, ... (as a batch process).

[rawill]

Sorry guys, I should have done more research.

Not hard in GIMP either!

[hgh]

Sorry guys, I should have done more research.

Not hard in GIMP either!

Why dont you take a look at Mass Watermark.It can watermark,resize,add exif to multiple photos quickly,I have been using it for a while.Not a free tool though $30 take a look here http://www.masswatermark.com

[jcuknz]

Even the original MS Paint can do a watermark by organising it as a file in its own right and the copying and pasting across to the photograph to be watermarked. I imagin that even LightRoom can do this ' copy and paste one photo on top of another. If you have layers and can organise a transparent background for the watermark file that would be probably more what people want to to have.
One on left was done by adding a vector layer which could be saved as a file for further use and on the right is the simple paste of one file on top of another using MS Paint.

There are probably a dozen other ways of doing it as with most editing.

[Colin Southern]

I suggest that people avoid it like the plague; it does little to nothing to stop the .0000001% of dishonest people stealing the images, but generally ruins the image for 100% of the people.

I ran a poll on it some time ago:

Question about Watermarks

It might surprise you to read how people feel about them.

[GrahamH]

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/1...-victory/?_r=1

No watermark means your image can more readily be used elsewhere. However, that could make you a million dollars.
Thread I am following (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=909772) comments on one guy who deliberately does not apply watermark deliberately, and keeps a lawyer on retainer (around comment 10) and 'makes a tidy amount of money each year'.
The general tone on Model Mayhem (a lot of professional photographers) is that watermarking is a good thing.
Me, I'm ambivalent about it. Doesn't affect me cos my pictures aren't good enough for someone to steal .
Graham

[revi]

Interestingly, hidden in the old thread was a good reason to use a watermark, not at all related to copyright:
add a date and title to show the occasion shown in the image (in this case a swim meet, I guess)

And, one of the reasons they are so in favor of watermarks at ModelMayhem is not so much the theft prevention, but the (USA) provision that removing the
mark has a separate fine of $2500 - $25000 per image (as I understood it) (same goes for removing metadata, btw). In addition, the mark makes it hard
to claim the copyright infringement wasn't willful, also increasing the price tag...

One other good remark in there as well: there basically aren't any digital images in the public domain yet (original images, that is), as digital photography
didn't exist 70 years ago

[jcuknz]

Not a comment about the deliberate artistic mis treatment of a photo .... all about making money GHU
I'm with Colin on this subject but answered the question
Also point out it took me about a minute to remove them .....

[MrB]

I suggest that people avoid it like the plague; it does little to nothing to stop the .0000001% of dishonest people stealing the images, but generally ruins the image for 100% of the people.

+1

The original purpose of using watermarking was to make the symbol or message invisible in normal viewing. It is beyond belief that any visible so-called watermark would be considered acceptable on a photographic image.

Philip

[Colin Southern]

+1

The original purpose of using watermarking was to make the symbol or message invisible in normal viewing. It is beyond belief that any visible so-called watermark would be considered acceptable on a photographic image.

Philip

Brothers in arms!

I should add that there is a world of difference between a watermark and a signature/title in an image frame. One ruins the image, one is perfectly acceptable.

[dan marchant]

No watermark means your image can more readily be used elsewhere. However, that could make you a million dollars.

Conversely there are excellent legal/financial reasons to watermark. Removing the watermark is taken as proof that an infringer wilfully infringed the copyright, thus increasing the penalties awarded (or allowing you to negotiate a larger settlement). In the US removal is a separate offence (in addition to any infringement) which carries its own financial penalties of between $2500 to $25,000 per instance, in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.

[Colin Southern]

Conversely there are excellent legal/financial reasons to watermark. Removing the watermark is taken as proof that an infringer wilfully infringed the copyright, thus increasing the penalties awarded (or allowing you to negotiate a larger settlement). In the US removal is a separate offence (in addition to any infringement) which carries its own financial penalties of between $2500 to $25,000 per instance, in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.

If the objective is to make money through litigation rather than selling an image on it's own merits then I'd (sadly) have to agree, but otherwise, I think it makes about as much sense as painting a masterpiece and then having one of the local kids tag it with a spray can in that what the point of creating the art in the first place if you're going to immediately ruin it with a watermark?

[LocalHero1953]

Is this a kid with a spay can, or an unsightly watermark?
If we feel the need for a watermark for the reasons given in this thread, at least it doesn't have to be large and characterless. But there are precedents for putting it in the image, rather than just in the border!

[dan marchant]

If the objective is to make money through litigation rather than selling an image on it's own merits then I'd (sadly) have to agree, but otherwise, I think it makes about as much sense as painting a masterpiece and then having one of the local kids tag it with a spray can in that what the point of creating the art in the first place if you're going to immediately ruin it with a watermark?

The flip side to that is that if you intend to make money by selling your images you should take action to prevent infringement which would devalue them. A watermark is like an anti shop lifting tag. It makes the clothes somewhat unsightly and uncomfortable but a shop that actually intends to stay in business isn't going to leave them off because people think they are ugly.

There are countless posts in photo forums about people having images used without permission. Registering your copyright and watermarking won't stop all of those cases but it makes doing something about it a damn sight easier. Walk into an attorney's office and tell them you have an unregistered/un-watermarked image that has been infringed and they will ask for a large cheque up front (on top of getting a smaller settlement you won't be able to claim back the attorneys fees). Tell them the images are registered and watermarked and they will take the case with zero up front and have a much easier time of forcing a (larger) settlement out of an infringer.

[Colin Southern]

Is this a kid with a spay can, or an unsightly watermark?
If we feel the need for a watermark for the reasons given in this thread, at least it doesn't have to be large and characterless. But there are precedents for putting it in the image, rather than just in the border!

I'd call it a signature, not a watermark, but the difference is that traditional paintings tend to be several feet wide and not several inches wide as are our photographs. So a little signature on a big painting wasn't cause for distraction, but these days the signatures, logos and watermarks aren't discrete -- they're big enough to totally yank the eye from it's essential flow through an image to the point where it usually completely ruins it.

It's probably an issue with the way people brains work -- mind is particularly sensitive to things like that. It's a bit like having a beautiful multi-million dollar car with a beautiful paint job that someone has scored with a swiss army knife; 99.9 % of the paint is still untouched, but the 0.1% scratch totally ruins the entire car. Same with photos for me.

[Colin Southern]

The flip side to that is that if you intend to make money by selling your images you should take action to prevent infringement which would devalue them. A watermark is like an anti shop lifting tag. It makes the clothes somewhat unsightly and uncomfortable but a shop that actually intends to stay in business isn't going to leave them off because people think they are ugly.

There are countless posts in photo forums about people having images used without permission. Registering your copyright and watermarking won't stop all of those cases but it makes doing something about it a damn sight easier. Walk into an attorney's office and tell them you have an unregistered/un-watermarked image that has been infringed and they will ask for a large cheque up front (on top of getting a smaller settlement you won't be able to claim back the attorneys fees). Tell them the images are registered and watermarked and they will take the case with zero up front and have a much easier time of forcing a (larger) settlement out of an infringer.

If that was the case then it might be fair enough (the artist has to weigh the merits of degrading the image with the watermark -v- the ability of people to "see through" the degradation and still want to purchase it), but 99.99% of the time it's not artists selling work (and thus protecting an income stream) - it's usually people who's work (when judged against a commercial standard) is "mediocre at best" - they wouldn't have a hope-in-hell of ever selling the work - and even if they did, the theft of that work almost certainly wouldn't degrade it's value because they'd probably never know it occurred, and the audience of the thief probably wouldn't know of the original for sale.

So the vast vast vast vast majority of the time it doesn't put more $$$ into the artists pocket -- it only serves as a guaranteed mechanism for completely ruining the very work that they've gone to all the trouble to create and present.

I'd suggest that most of the time it's done by people who (a) haven't learnt about the flow of the eye through an image yet and (b) who are naive enough to think it's going to stop people removing a signature/watermark, and (c) think people are going to be stealing their work.

I've long held the attitude that if someone wants a copy of one of my images to brighten their day then they're welcome to it; it's not going to take any $$$ out of my pocket - may well generate some free advertising and/or good will - and it's not going to be of sufficient resolution to be able to produce a significantly sized print anyway.

[flashback]

I just came across this article - Band Responds in the Worst Way Possible After Stealing Photographer’s Work
Interesting read about recovering rights to an image and equally interesting, scroll down to the very bottom of the page and see the band's most recent response.

[JR1]

Plenty of tutorials in youtube