Public Facebook Album?

[Quentin88]

As little freelance I often post my shots on Facebook, mainly to "lure" new clients and to keep the attention from the old ones. I had public albums since some time ago when I discovered than a local newspaper used my pictures whitout paying or asking me.
I wouldn't like to add watermarks to all my pics and public albums are allmost a necessity, what to do? Should I keep my album "private" or should I let them public and deal with the "stealing"?

[JR1]

If someone wants them that bad most good with photoshop can edit a watermark, mine aren't and they are on facebook

[Geoff F]

Keep the sizes fairly small, particularly with anything that might have a sales value.

I use a publicly available site (P base) and keep images below 1000 pixels. But I'm retired now so I don't worry about anybody using them; as long as they give me the credit and don't claim the images were taken by themselves.

Local newspapers sometimes use my photos but they never pay for any photos. And charitable bodies have also used my shots in national papers and other publications, after asking for permission. Also without payment, but with credits.

[shreds]

If there is a commercial element, then you might want to consider 'Digimarc'ing them which is a bolt on to Photoshop. Then you can track usage too.

News organisations such as the BBC, News International group and others, really take the biscuit by not paying for images unless you are NUJ or similar. They think they have the god given right, which is wrong.

I will give authorisation to genuine organisations for free use, not massive commercial money making organisations, unless they pay for the rights.

If they gave their products away freely, that would be another matter, but they don't.

[dubaiphil]

I removed my images from Facebook last year. In the small print you lose all image rights these days, so better be safe than sorry and not bother...

[saea501]

It's best to watermark them. Just a small, semi transparent logo or name is all you need. If someone takes your image, removes or edits the watermark they are subject to fines of $2500 to $25,000.
Read here:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07...your-ears.html

[yogirajj]

Unfortunately, respect for copyright is an issue when it comes to photography. Everybody is stealing other people's stuff. The sad part is, you know it sucks when an organization like BBC wouldn't give copyright holders the respect of asking. On the other hand, newspapers and bloggers either abuse "fair use", or assume fair use without seeking advice. There is that fine line, because if they have taken a beautiful picture of a cat, and the article that is written about cats, then fair use would go strongly in their favor. However, if they take that same cat photo and use it to talk about various cat products that is a different issue all together.

Honestly, the internet is way to big to worry about that. You can't spend every minute on the minute scouring the internet looking for people that infringe upon your work. Besides, if an infringer decides to use your photo in an out of state magazine, or sell T-shirts on the street, what is the likelihood of you knowing about it? Think about how many tattoo artist commit infringement every day? I've seen people take logos from various cars and sold them as iTouch covers. People out here have a lot of balls. Unless you have a big name for yourself, don't worry about it too much cause it will happen. However, if your that worried about it, here are a couple of things I've done:

1. I don't think there anything wrong with putting a hard "sample" stamp/ or logo on some of your work.
2. Only post small sized images. This helps a lot because the thief can't produce large prints
3. If you own your own blog, post photos on your blog, and password the page, and give to prospects.
4. Change the password frequently
5. As Shred has suggested, use Digimarc
6. Don't post any photos you are sensitive too.

[kateveber]

It's best to watermark them. Just a small, semi transparent logo or name is all you need. If someone takes your image, removes or edits the watermark they are subject to fines of $2500 to $25,000.
Read here:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07...your-ears.html

It'd the great thing and no body can miss use the images. If so, they'll have to pay money.

[RustBeltRaw]

Watermarks make no difference from a copyright-infringement standpoint. They have two effects;

1. If a user removes or crops out your watermark, they've modified the image, and can be subject to additional penalties.
2. A lot of people think, incorrectly, that a watermark has some legal power, so using one may scare them away.

Personally, I watermark everything I post on Facebook. Images are at 960px (a resolution Facebook doesn't resize), which is still large enough that I've had six thefts I know of. Mostly editorial stuff. Portraits of specific people tend not to be stolen, since they have a more specific audience. In addition, I work for several different organizations, who don't want me to aggressively pursue image thieves because it would make them look bad. The catch is, most of our images aren't worth the cost of litigation to protect them, so thieves basically have carte blanche. Ultimately, I've accepted, but am extremely unhappy with, steady image theft. Best you can do is earn enough from your work to make the thefts irrelevant.

I recommend keeping the albums public. Hopefully, the extra exposure will be worth the occasional unscrupulous, inconsiderate browser with sticky fingers. It has been for me.

[IzzieK]

I uploaded some videos of old photographs taken in Saudi Arabia when husband was there on loan to Saudia Air Lines and was looking for the remainder of the 10 Buckaroo T35A trainers given to the Saudis in 1950. Our old friend was the one that accompanied the shipment of those trainers. Then I also did another video of the recovery by my husband and the bringing home of those parts and airplanes. They were posted in his Facebook account. It was stolen many times over. Then one of his son's friend who was with my husband in the recovery process (also a pilot on loaned to Saudia) stole a copy of the video and told us AFTER the fact. He was on his way to Paris when he told us. I had taken the videos since and never uploaded any photos nor videos ever since. In fact, I do not have a Facebook account. I just use my husband's account if I need to.

[Colin Southern]

It's best to watermark them. Just a small, semi transparent logo or name is all you need.

I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree more. I've just never seen the logic in ruining an image for the huge majority to deter theft from a tiny minority. Just doesn't make sense.

[John Morton]

I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree more. I've just never seen the logic in ruining an image for the huge majority to deter theft from a tiny minority. Just doesn't make sense.

The last little project I worked on was an exposition of the provenance for an artifact my dad brought back from Jamaica, where he was stationed during WWII. To illustrate one very important point, I had to find photographs of a particular kind of snake – the Fer De Lance. My only option was to do a search on the Internet; and I did find many good photos which I would never be in a position to get myself. Some of those photos were watermarked with the name of the person who took the image; but I would have been much happier had they used their email address, as I would then have actually been able to contact them.

As it was, the photos were already in a third or fourth iteration by the time I found them; and although I was certainly working well within the "fair use" constraints which govern scholarly works, I still would have been happier had I been able to contact the people who took the images and at least let them know where I had found them and what I was using them to do. So in this case, I would have been happier had the photographers used a larger, more inclusive watermark which gave their contact info (although that in itself can be problematic for a person to do, given the probability that spam might result.

Anyone who cares for a look can do so here; although, the 50 MB file size makes for a slow download:

http://originofwriting.com/TainoQuiv...iver_Print.pdf

[Colin Southern]

So in this case, I would have been happier had the photographers used a larger, more inclusive watermark which gave their contact info

If a photographer wishes to convey contact information then they can easily do that in a matte area around the image; no need to ruin the image. Adding it to the metadata should be standard practice also.

[RustBeltRaw]

Adding it to the metadata should be standard practice also.

Good point, but note that some applications, including Facebook, strip metadata. My cameras are set to write my copyright notice into the metadata as soon as I go click, which is quite handy.

As it was, the photos were already in a third or fourth iteration by the time I found them; and although I was certainly working well within the "fair use" constraints which govern scholarly works, I still would have been happier had I been able to contact the people who took the images and at least let them know where I had found them and what I was using them to do.

Note that you can modify a Google Image search by license. For instance, these search results are for the term "Fer de Lance," limited to licenses for noncommercial reproduction without modification.

[Colin Southern]

Good point, but note that some applications, including Facebook, strip metadata.

For sure, but if it's on Facebook then it's easy to contact the image creator directly anyway, and if it's another site that strips metadata then the loss of potential contact info is just something that the artist has to accept if that's his chosen showcase platform.

My cameras are set to write my copyright notice into the metadata as soon as I go click, which is quite

Same, but as far as contact info goes, that's pretty limited. I automatically add much more info during the conversion to DNG phase.

Point I was trying to make though is that putting bigger watermarks on images to assist in contacting an artist is NOT the answer.

[RustBeltRaw]

For sure, but if it's on Facebook then it's easy to contact the image creator directly anyway, and if it's another site that strips metadata then the loss of potential contact info is just something that the artist has to accept if that's his chosen showcase platform.

It is quite easy to contact the source of the media. The problem is, people (including blunt journalists) don't. Even clicking a hyperlinked name next to the image is apparently too much effort. Everything I post has my name and site linked next to it, but all the metadata and ease of locating the shooter in the world can't make people give a hoot.

Same, but as far as contact info goes, that's pretty limited. I automatically add much more info during the conversion to DNG phase.

That's a good call. I should set up something similar.

Point I was trying to make though is that putting bigger watermarks on images to assist in contacting an artist is NOT the answer.

Agreed. That's part of why I picked Rust Belt Raw as a branding name. My stuff shows up first in a Google search.

[Colin Southern]

It is quite easy to contact the source of the media. The problem is, people (including blunt journalists) don't. Even clicking a hyperlinked name next to the image is apparently too much effort. Everything I post has my name and site linked next to it, but all the metadata and ease of locating the shooter in the world can't make people give a hoot.

That's why I think people should just go after digital thieves if they feel strongly enough about it.

In real life we don't permanently ruin the stock in our store to stop people stealing it - instead, we prosecute them if the theft is significant enough. Why should images be any different?

[RustBeltRaw]

In real life we don't permanently ruin the stock in our store to stop people stealing it - instead, we prosecute them if the theft is significant enough. Why should images be any different?

Because the organizations we work for ask us not to, since a lot of their customers come from the exposure local media gives them. A peculiarity of my situation I hope others manage to avoid.

[Colin Southern]

Because the organizations we work for ask us not to, since a lot of their customers come from the exposure local media gives them. A peculiarity of my situation I hope others manage to avoid.

Does it take any $$$ out of your pocket though?

My observation is that when it comes to image theft the vast majority of photographers are more concerned about the principle of it than any financial loss. To be honest, I'm a little bemused by it; it's dead easy to all but eliminate -- they simply need to avoid putting their images on the net (yes, that too has a consequence, but it does cure the problem). Personally, I feel that putting prominent watermarks on mediocre images (that degrades them considerably) so that that they have a better legal position if someone steals the image (and/or - heaven forbid - removes the watermark) is somewhat egotistical, on several levels.

[RustBeltRaw]

My observation is that when it comes to image theft the vast majority of photographers are more concerned about the principle of it than any financial loss. To be honest, I'm a little bemused by it; it's dead easy to all but eliminate -- they simply need to avoid putting their images on the net (yes, that too has a consequence, but it does cure the problem). Personally, I feel that putting prominent watermarks on mediocre images (that degrades them considerably) so that that they have a better legal position if someone steals the image (and/or - heaven forbid - removes the watermark) is somewhat egotistical, on several levels.

All fair points. No, it doesn't actually cost me much, but on a higher level, I worry that the trade as a whole is being taken for granted, and appropriating a hobbyist's work can put an actual pro out of work, and that does bother me.

My watermarks are purely red herrings to scare off the uninformed, and are usually placed away from the subject with less than 15% opacity.

Another problem is that some photographers rely very, very heavily on online marketing, so asking them not to post their images to the web is much like saying they need to maintain their business without marketing themselves. Tricky, to put it mildly. Quite a few people can get away without online marketing, but if your work is editorial in nature, that's a tough requirement.