Question about Watermarks

[jprzybyla]

My opinion of watermarks added is that it is amateurish. Done to try to look professional when it achieves the opposite. The image should stand by itself. The artist data and copyright data should be in the metadata of the image, with contact imformation added just in case someone may want to use the image. Stepping down from my soapbox, just my opinion.

[Andrew76]

Nice 'test' Colin! Does this mean I win an award, AND get 2 brownie points?? My wife and children will be so proud!

In all seriousness though, I think this is a great discussion. I've been lucky to hear both sides. I don't think it will sway my original opinion, however, my eyes have been opened.

Thanks Phillip for bringing it back to reality, I really didn't want this to turn into a discussion about something it's not, and sorry for my poor use of English!! I'll be interested to see how the poll turns out.

[Carl in Louisiana]

Hi Louise,

They already have it. It basically works on the principle of a change in levels so subtle and small that the human eye can see it, but a computer can. Not sure what it accomplishes though. You can put full copyright - useage rights - contact info into the metadata.

Here's an example where the background is at 0 and some text is at level 1 (of 255). Increase the exposure about 4 stops or chuck on a levels layer and bring the highlights clipping control all the way down to read the "secret message) (2 brownie points to the fist person who can reveal the secret message!)

Hello this is a test!

I like ice cold milk with the brownies Thank you kindly Sir.

I voted I hate them.

P.S. If you would like to know how I saw it I will tell you.

[Colin Southern]

"Hello this is a test!"

2 brownie points to Carl

Edit - oops - sorry Andrew kinda beat you to it (he was just a little too crypic for my small brain this early in the day!)

What the heck, 2 brownie points to both of you. Around here, 2 brownie points and $4 gets you a ride on the bus!

[Carl in Louisiana]

I had to re-read Andrews post and yes he did beat me to it. Congrats to Andrew!

[ChrisGilbert]

Just a small addendum - Bearing in mind that most web-located shots are usually not fit for much more than web content when stolen, reverse image searching offers a very useful alternate route to policing. It's not completely bomb-proof and avoids the need to slap graffiti all over your work. I regularly turn up my work on commercial web sites. Sometimes the thief gets invoiced and sometimes we end up working together. It all depends on how you handle it....

[dan marchant]

The fact of the matter is that inserting minimal, inconspicuous watermarks in the bottom of images is an exercise in futility if the intent is to protect the image. So that can't be one of the reasons people do it.

Of course it can. When has the futility of something ever been a good reason for people not to do something?
There are multiple reasons why people watermark images
1. Artist signing their work. (small watermark)
2. Clearly identify the source of the image (small watermark which includes url)
3. Dissuade people from using image without permission (big transparent watermark)
4. Clearly state that an image is copyright - thus preventing anyone who uses the image from claiming they weren't aware that it was copyright.

Case 3 may not prevent everyone from stealing the image but then locking your doors and windows wont prevent a really determined burglar. What it does do it deter casual infringers - those who are too lazy or stupid to remove a watermark.

In case 4 you increase the penalty that an infringer will have to pay because someone who unknowingly infringes copyright will be penalised but the penalties are lower than for those people who knowingly infringe. In addition (in the US) the act of removing a copyright notice is a separate criminal offence carrying an additional fine of up to $2500 for each instance (USC › Title 17 › Chapter 5 › § 506(d)). That can make taking legal action a lot more worthwhile.

Of course none of the above matters because the question is pointless - the real question is why do people get so bent out of shape over what other people choose to do to their own images? If you don't like them, don't look at them.

[dan marchant]

Interesting scenario but, (a) legally, putting a watermark on an image doesn't change a thing in the laws of all countries that I'm aware of, ....

In most countries, as per my post above, it removes the possibility of claiming an "unknowing infringement" and in the USA the removal of such a copyright mark is a separate offence in its own right carrying a fine of up to $2500 for each instance.

[Colin Southern]

the real question is why do people get so bent out of shape over what other people choose to do to their own images? If you don't like them, don't look at them.

Because they post them here and ask for our opinions on them. And helping people is what we do.

[William W]

Of course none of the above [which I wrote] matters

Of course it does. It is part of the discussion.

because the [original] question is pointless

Of course it isn't. It began the discussion, into which you chose to contribute, and then stated that contribution didn't matter . . . ? ? ?


WW

[Andrew76]

Because they post them here and ask for our opinions on them. And helping people is what we do.

This is exactly my point. This thread has taken a direction for which is was never intended. Like Phillip has pointed out several times, my intent was to figure out why people do it.

[Andrew76]

Of course it isn't. It began the discussion, into which you chose to contribute, and then stated that contribution didn't matter . . . ? ? ?
WW

Thanks Bill.

[MrB]

Of course none of the above matters because the question is pointless - the real question is why do people get so bent out of shape over what other people choose to do to their own images? If you don't like them, don't look at them.

This sort of response is unnecessary, and all the more disappointing because the previous points (numbered 1 to 4) in the same post were well-reasoned answers.

As a riposte to the comment quoted above I can only express my own opinion, but from the poll I suspect that other members might concur - I want to view carefully and thoughtfully any image posted here, because that is a major component of the learning process that CiC exists to provide. Distracting additions interfere with the ease and enjoyment of viewing and learning, particularly when the image is otherwise an obviously excellent one.

Philip

[Carl in Louisiana]

I agree with Philip
I for one am not bent out of shape because someone puts a great big or even a small watermark/signature on their photos if it is going into a site for sale or if one is sold and the photographer wants his/her name on his/her work. We all know that a signature can and will increase the value of a photograph done by a well known artist, most often after that persons life is over. It is his or her right to do so. I just stated that I hate them. But here on the forum where C & C is requested then I think it becomes a problem for those that are trying to help out and give constructive criticism as the watermark reguardless of how big or small draws the eye away from the image, at least for me it does and I have not the experience yet to comment on other photos. I know from looking at some on here that they are much further along than I am, but if I am serious about getting C & C I don't want anything to hinder getting what I need to further my skills because to me learning what could become a career is important and if not a career then a serious undertaking to do the best that I can, just because I can and most of all I want to because photograhpy is a long time dream of mine. I like the fact that this thread was started as it has opened my eyes to what I think are some very valid reason to place a signature/watermark on the photos at some point, some that I must admit I never thought of. But until the day comes when my work is good enough to sell I will leave the signature/watermark off and if I use one, a very small and almost invisible one, it will be when the image is sold and just for it to be known that it was one of my works of art. May make my kids a little monies after my passing. lol

[drjuice]

I dislike them, but I don't see much of a choice to make clear that I (and only I) own the rights to the image subject to any global rules on various fora. This is one reason I don't use social media per se very much at all. They all seem to change their privacy and ownership rules without substantial notification and acknowledgement of individual copyrights.

I'm jes' sayin'.

v

[Colin Southern]

We all know that a signature can and will increase the value of a photograph done by a well known artist, most often after that persons life is over.

I'm wondering how much of the practice is historical roll-over from painters doing it? The difference is that a typical painting might be 24 inches wide, and 18 inches high - and a signature that's the equivalent of - say - 12 point text isn't that noticeable ... but when we talk of online images - we end up with an image that maybe only 6 to 8 inches, and yet the photographer is still sticking to the same size text -- and as such what was subtle and discrete with the painting, is now blatant and distracting in the photo.

[Carl in Louisiana]

I'm wondering how much of the practice is historical roll-over from painters doing it? The difference is that a typical painting might be 24 inches wide, and 18 inches high - and a signature that's the equivalent of - say - 12 point text isn't that noticeable ... but when we talk of online images - we end up with an image that maybe only 6 to 8 inches, and yet the photographer is still sticking to the same size text -- and as such what was subtle and discrete with the painting, is now blatant and distracting in the photo.

As to the question, I don't know the answer to it (perhaps more than we would like to say). But I do agree with you on the small images posted online having 12 point text smacked across it, or competing with the image. I cannot stand to try and veiw a photo around such text. My point was that "if" said image was being sold and assuming that it was much larger say 24 x 18 inches or more, then a watermark of some type as you say would hardley be noticed without looking for it. That to me is when you can view the painting/photo without the distraction plastered across/competing with the entire image and if you were curious "Who did it" you could look for the signature at that point.

I did check out your site "It is Awesome".

[Colin Southern]

I did check out your site "It is Awesome".

Thanks Carl - and not a watermark in sight (and I sleep just fine!)

[Ronny]

Very interesting subject and I went thru all the comments.
I consider the internet a war zone or a wild west area. Everything happened and everything can happen.
Watermark or no watermark when a person wants to steal, they will do that and I am pretty sure they find a way to delete a watermark.
That said, I start adding the copyright and web site in very small text in a corner of my images. I am a Realtor and a real estate photographer who market my site to the world. And it works, because I received an order about 10 days ago from a man, who is also a member of a Real Estate forum.
But I do not like a large watermark across an image.

[wlou]

Your help please!Copyright. What would constitute copyright "illegal action"? I found a great site of a great photographer:Carl Kleiner. I would like to show two of his photos to my little group of amateur photographer. On his site there are no markings on the pictures but if you click "store", there is a long description of theirs rules for commercial use.
My question is: Is it leagal to copy/paste a picture on your personnal computor to show to your freinds or is it against the law?
Your help would be much appreciated on this.