On the subject of logos and watermarks

Hi everybody,

About watermarks, well I guess it's up to the photographer whether he/she wants to use it or not.
Afterall, it's the photographer's photo.

On youtube, many posters use commercial songs as background music for their videos. But I noticed the recording companies do not prosecute. Some of the young kids who did that, were just sent a message from the owners warning them and saying they reserve the right to inject their ads into their videos.

Meanwhile, perhaps, it's more fruitful to just keep on enjoying shooting.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Morton

Thus, I personally see nothing wrong with photographers applying a signature or watermark to their images.

---

I don't think it's ever a question of "right or wrong"; it's ALWAYS going to be their right to do it if they wish - BUT - it's always going to be the VIEWERS right to act accordingly. If a photographer puts a distracting watermark on an image in a competition - and bugs the heck out of 80% of the voters - then it was his choice to put it on - their choice not to vote for it - and he must thus accept responsibility for that. Either way, it's his call, but he can't say "it's his right to put it there but others have no right not to vote for it because it is there".

In a more commercial setting I know a lovely couple who setup a website to sell images on behalf of other photographers. In an attempt to stop the images being stolen they kept the resolution very low and stuck a bit watermark over each and every one. It worked! Not a single image was ever stolen ...

... or sold.

Well said Colin. This topic has been brought up several times on this forum, and I've voiced my opinion before so I thought I would stay out of it this time, but I just can't!! Although it would never be my intent to try and change someone's opinion, I think it's pretty much as simple as Colin has just summed it up.

If you're posting an image for critique, and there's a problem with white balance, I won't hesitate to tell you. If there are any other such undesirable problems with the image, I won't hesitate then either. That would include any kind of watermark or any such thing that detracts from the image.

And in a competition setting, Colin has pretty well stole the words from my mouth.

I'm with Colin on this one. In a very few instances I'll watermark but only when I perceive a serious $$$ value for the image and the number of those is really small compared to the total number of images I take. I've won a couple of serious prizes for images. Those are the only images I've watermarked and the watermarks are not large, obnoxious, or invasive.

I'm jes' sayin' ....

virginia

I try to incorporate the watermark into the photo composition. When I do a lot of post processing and design work, it gets repeated thru-out. It can end-up like an I SPY game. Then I have to make another one as a formal signature at the bottom right.

It would make it easy to prove work was stolen in a court-of-law if it ever go to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

It would make it easy to prove work was stolen in a court-of-law if it ever go to that.

---

I would have thought that the best way to prove that one was the original artist in a court of law would be to simply produce the original source file/image; in many cases, removing a signature/watermark (with zero traces of it remaining or of it having been removed) can be done in about (literally) 2 to 5 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I would have thought that the best way to prove that one was the original artist in a court of law would be to simply produce the original source file/image; in many cases, removing a signature/watermark (with zero traces of it remaining or of it having been removed) can be done in about (literally) 2 to 5 seconds.

---

I usually crop my images that I share online to a standard 8"X10" size ratio. My original file is always larger, containing image area not in any version I make available online. That pretty much proves which version is the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I would have thought that the best way to prove that one was the original artist in a court of law would be to simply produce the original source file/image;

---

The purpose of a watermark/copyright notice isn't to prove ownership, it is to prove that the infringer was aware that the work was copyright (or at least the identity of the artist). This eliminates the possibility of them claiming it was an innocent infringement (which carries a reduced penalty) as opposed to the more serious (and costly) willful infringement. In addition (as mentioned above) the act of removing the watermark/copyright notice is a separate offense that carries additional penalties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Morton

I usually crop my images that I share online to a standard 8"X10" size ratio. My original file is always larger, containing image area not in any version I make available online. That pretty much proves which version is the original.

---

Absolutely.

I believe that there are other electronic ways to "encode" information into the actual image data too (not just metadata).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan marchant

The purpose of a watermark/copyright notice isn't to prove ownership, it is to prove that the infringer was aware that the work was copyright (or at least the identity of the artist). This eliminates the possibility of them claiming it was an innocent infringement (which carries a reduced penalty) as opposed to the more serious (and costly) willful infringement. In addition (as mentioned above) the act of removing the watermark/copyright notice is a separate offense that carries additional penalties.

---

I agree, but I think you need to be quoting Gretchen, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I would have thought that the best way to prove that one was the original artist in a court of law would be to simply produce the original source file/image; in many cases, removing a signature/watermark (with zero traces of it remaining or of it having been removed) can be done in about (literally) 2 to 5 seconds.

---

Well, yes, but I don't live in a perfect world or keep perfecty organized files. I've lost so much over the years, I can't begin to wonder where I'd look for some things.

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggt

Well, yes, but I don't live in a perfect world or keep perfecty organized files. I've lost so much over the years, I can't begin to wonder where I'd look for some things.

LOL

---

Oh dear!

Of recent, I've taken to just uploading a copy to Google Drive -- it's worked a treat so far.

Gee, the background in that advertisement looks awfully familiar...

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...pyright/Ad.jpg


Nice color scheme and visual display; where have I seen something like that before? Oh, I know: in one of my favorite photos, taken as a one second zoom up into the forest canopy of the Carmanah Valley back in 1990:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...rmanahZoom.jpg

Well, you can't copyright a concept; and there are always advertising para/sites around looking to take whatever they can get their hands upon if they can make a dollar by doing so.

Not that I'm the only person to have ever taken a photo like that; and I am sure that the ad agency employees involved also spend a lot of time out in old growth temperate rainforests, photographing the forest canopy. No doubt they based their derivation on one of their own photos, or upon that of someone else.

And after all, drawing radial colored lines and blurring them can hardly be construed as the unlicensed use of a photograph that quite possibly has been seen by the artist(s) in question.

All perfectly legal, whatever the case; nothing to bother oneself about here.

The colors are a bit off, though; I suppose that, like me, they have never been able to accurately convert a photo like that (just like that) from Adobe RGB (with its large range of deep moss greens, spruce needle blue greens, and bright lichen greens) into sRGB.

I've struggled with whether to watermark or not, too.
For me, it's not so much that my stuff is all that great and I'm making tons of money from it.
I'm still in the "starving artist" stage.

But when it comes to something I've created; I'm a control freak.

I created that veritable masterpiece *cough, cough* and I care about HOW it's being used by someone else.

If they're actually making a dime by representing my work as theirs... then I want a piece of that action.

If they're using my images to promote something I DO NOT support, personally-speaking... then you can bet I want to know about it and will do everything in my power to make them cease and desist (if not go even further!).

If I've posted my photos on a forum or website where it's likely someone would copy/paste/print without attribution/credit or notice: I watermark IN ADDITION to adding embedded copyright information in the metadata.
(That way, if there's a question down the road, there are multiple layers of "proof".)
My aim is to take advantage of free exposure/advertising ops without giving it away.
I use small, unobtrusive watermarking (up until very recently, it was simply my standard signature of my initial: "T~" ).

However, I also have a dedicated and hosted website and sell some of my work as fine art prints on another dedicated website.
Additionally, a couple of the forums I contribute to have the ability to copy/paste blocked by default.
Yet another, publishes staff favorites and winners of featured challenges to a printed, monthly magazine (which gives proper credit in print to each photo published).

On all of those sites; I post my work sans watermarking and in the resolution shot in.

I want to present my photography in the best possible light at all times because I never know who might stumble on something I've done that they LIKE, want to purchase or maybe... even.... MIGHT make me famous someday! *snickers*

Just my two cents. This IS a discussion forum after-all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

What "amuses" me is the common misconception that folks NEED to watermark/ruin their images because there is a virtual army of thieves just waiting to steal their images ... when in reality (in my experience anyway, and given that my images are made available in "generous resolutions" and are (generally considered to be) commercial/professional quality) the problem is relatively (extremely) rare -- and in many cases the images that are ruined by the (perceived to be mandatory) watermark are of such mediocre quality that I seriously doubt anyone would want to steal them in the first place.

---

I wish that were the truth Colin but I don't think it is. A friend of mine (who travels a lot, because he can) recently returned from New Zealand; and one of the comments he made, after telling me what a great place it is, was that "... you definitely know that you're off the beaten path there, though - it sure isn't the mainstream!"

It may be the case, Colin, that you are blissfully shielded from the voracious nature of North American media culture - which absolutely abhors the concept that anything might ever remain outside itself and so subsumes anything and everything into
its ever widening mindscape.

You don't think that there are "armies of thieves" in this virtual environment? On the contrary:

http://www.livescience.com/24205-pri...t-private.html

"Eighty-eight percent of homemade pornography, including videos and still images, finds its way onto porn sites, often without the owners' knowledge, a new study concluded.

"The study analyzed more than 12,000 sexually explicit images uploaded by young people and found that the great majority of images had been stolen and published to what Britain's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which published the study, calls "parasite" websites.

"These para-sites, exclusively devoted to hosting sexual images featuring young subjects, allegedly obtain their material from anywhere they can get it: lost or stolen*cellphones, hacked private accounts on Photobucket, Flickr, or Facebook,* or from chat sites and Tumblr, a blogging platform notorious for the amount of explicit self-published content by high school and college-age students."

Eighty eight percent of those photos are grabbed, regardless of where they are stored. Only 12% of that form of photography DOESN'T get stolen.

What about everyone else's photographs? Well, we are all familiar with the way that the voracious cultural appetite of mainstream culture consumes musical groups: most new bands put out one or two quality albums based upon material they had written before signing a recording contract before they are reduced to recording songs about being up on stage, and hanging out in hotel rooms. All too often, that's all that new groups are left with as their inspiration after they are subsumed by the mainstream; that is what their previously wide ranging experiences are reduced to.

Advertising agency employees are no different. They start out as new hires who are fresh out of a college or university milieu where they have the 'pulse' of current culture; but after that well of experience is exhausted, what do they have left to market? Nothing; nada; the big zilch; so, they troll around the Internet sucking up the authentic experiences of others and repackaging them as their own.

I would bet my Nikon D700 (against a Nikon D800e; any takers?) that there are such people hanging around THIS site; and that they are particularly interested in the Mini Competitions, where they would receive a daily feedback on IMAGE PREFERENCES from an informed market segment. Do you think that none of the people who might use this site to that end would NEVER steal an image if they saw something they thought they could profit from, unbeknownst to the copyright holder?

In the cultural mainstream, it is FOLLY not to watermark and sign one's images. There was a time when this was a detriment to the viewing experience presented by photographs; but that time has been pushed into the past by other consideration unique to our present day and age.

I'm with Theresa, who posted above: I think that she has a VERY realistic grasp upon the realities of modern visual culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Morton

"Eighty-eight percent of homemade pornography, including videos and still images, finds its way onto porn sites, often without the owners' knowledge, a new study concluded.

---

Good point John - if ever I branch out into creating porn for the internet I'll be sure to put watermarks on it! :eek:

As for the other situations - all I can say is "it's never been a problem either for me, nor for anyone I know personally" - and apologies in advance, but I'm not buying into the "New Zealand being an isolated culture" argument as my images are on the net - so they're available to be stolen by any culture. In practice it just doesn't happen on a regular basis, and certainly doesn't take any money out of my pocket when it does.

I'm going to bow out of this thread now; watermarks come under the same category as UV filters / Macs / and Religion -- nobody ever changes their position regardless.

Poking around a little bit, I discovered that the firm who has traditionally handled PR for the product "Nicorette" (see October 22nd post, above) is coincidentally the same firm that was hired to undermine the environmental campaign which my image originated within: the successful fight to save the Carmanah Valley, home to the tallest trees in Canada, from logging.

The firm in question is Burson-Marsteller.

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=395

Burson-Marsteller

British Columbia Forest Alliance*

"An anti-environmental group that B-M certainly did create is the British Columbia Forest Alliance. In late 1990 B-M was hired to re-engineer the public image of Canada’s forest industries. The cornerstone of its campaign was a new front group, the British Columbia Forest Alliance. Environmental researcher, Andy Rowell described it thus*“The Alliance was designed as the industry’s stealth bomber, packed with influential people and fuelled with industry dollars, to blast holes in the environmentalists’ forestry campaigns. However, it came packaged as a dove of concern and conciliation”.[42]

"The BC Forest Alliance was launched in April 1991 under the leadership of Jack Munro, formerly the Chairperson of the International Wood Workers of America Union. Gary Ley, of B-M, was appointed executive director. In its first year it received $1m from corporate sponsors[43].

"The Vancouver Sun, the biggest newspaper in British Columbia, with a daily circulation of 260,000, soon fell under the influence of the Alliance. Forest company officials and Alliance members were soon visiting its offices. Before the launch of the BC Forest Alliance, the Sun had five full-time reporters covering forestry, native affairs, and other environmental issues. Soon only one environment journalist remained. The rest were assigned to a category called "resources" in the business section.
Reporters who wrote critically about the forest industry, and those who probed the workings of the Forest Alliance and Burson-Marsteller itself, say they were subjected to pressure. The Sun's forestry reporter, Ben Parfitt, was pulled from environmental issues after writing about Burson-Marsteller and the Forest Alliance, and reporter Mark Hume was grilled by a logging company official and an industry consultant, in the editor’s office, about columns he had written about a pro-logging coalition, while the editor, Hume says, stood by in silence[44].

"Ken Rietz of Burson Marsteller produced a seven- part TV series, entitled “The Forest and the People” to spread pro-industry propaganda[45].

"The BC Forest Alliance now claims a membership of 10,000 individuals and 300 companies and industry groups[46]."

<>

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...e/pkq72f00.png*

So, it would seem one must consider the possibility that, sometimes images are appropriated simply from malicious intent.