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

[FlyingSquirrel]

I've just read a number of articles all over the internet regarding whether or not a photographer should watermark their images. There are excellent points on both sides of the issue. I'd like to see what the good folks on this forum think about this. Thanks

[Vrgl]

I believe there are two schools of thought as to WHY to put a watermark on a photo:
To "protect" it from being used without permission and to "advertise" one's work. In the USA the only surefire way to protect your images from "theft" is by copyright. It's not hard and you can do it online and you can do several photos at once ( for one fee). I understand the acknowledgement part ( letting people know who's work it is)-but I have seen alot of watermarks that make me cringe- it's almost like it's about the watermark more than the photo. So I would say leave off the watermark--mary

[AB26]

Hi Matt,

I do not think a watermark will solve any problems. It actually spoils images in a forum like CiC.

Posting images in a size that is not really useable is probably a beter option.

We are all taking chances posting anything on the net. We trust others not to misuse whatever we post. Many a time that trust is broken and we are disappointed in our fellow man. However, I do not believe that most of mankind are always on the lure to see where a fellow man can be deprived of his/her personal belongings or rights. We have to guard against those who do act with malicious intent and we learn to live with it for the beter of most of mankind.

[Donald]

Matt

You're probably just going to get the same arguments for and against on here as you saw elsewhere.

It's one of those, 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.

All it does is that people start to get hot under the collar because they're engaging in a debate in which they cannot see and interact with people as we do in normal discourse and, as a result, written text gets misinterpreted and/or people feel they have licence to be rude and objectionable.

So, let the melee begin ........ again!

[Mike Buckley]

Hi, Matt!

Do you wanna have some fun? I'll make a $50 donation to the charity of your choice if at least one person participating in the thread changes their mind by the end of June about this issue because of an argument made in this thread. You make a $50 donation to the charity of my choice if that doesn't happen. The charity has to provide a method for making the payment online and its mission must be to combat a particular disease of human beings.

Are ya game? If so, PM me once it has been determined who has to get out the credit card.

[davidedric]

If it's for a good cause I'd be happy to change my mind. More than once, if it helps

[Donald]

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

[Mike Buckley]

You folks are incorrigible.

[Digital]

I thought this was a thread about whether to watermark or not to watermark.

Bruce

[Donald]

I thought this was a thread about whether to watermark or not to watermark.

Bruce

Sort of!

[Digital]

Sort of!

Donald, I appreciate you setting me straight.

Bruce

[AB26]

Hi, Matt!

if at least one person participating in the thread changes their mind by the end of June

Aha! Now I understand. It should be about changing someone’s mind.
All those in favor of a watermark, say YA!
All those against a watermark, say NAY!
All those whom voted YA, no more posting images for you! Or have you changed your mind?

[RustBeltRaw]

I watermark when I'm displaying my images on Facebook and Tumblr, because users there are almost universally ignorant of copyright law, fair use, image theft, and intellectual property laws. Because of that, they think a watermark is protection. Incorrect, but I'm happy to take advantage of their ignorance. I started watermarking after an events blog (name withheld) pulled down a load of images from a street party I attended and used them in their coverage. Haven't had as many shots stolen since I started watermarking.

When posting to CiC or 500px, or submitting my images to someone who's aware of the law and more of a connoisseur, I use clean versions. Watermarking is actually one of my more time-consuming PP steps, so I'm happy to skip it when I can. Unfortunately, I'm in a rather awkward phase where my photos are apparently good enough to steal, but not valuable enough to cover litigation costs.

[Clactonian]

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

Philistine!!!!!!

[NorthernFocus]

...Posting images in a size that is not really useable is probably a beter option....

+1

I have changed my mind. I now prefer Nikon...

I always suspected there was an intelligent human being lurking in there

[nimitzbenedicto]

...to watermark or not to watermark?

Sometimes I do , but usually don't.

In any case, it isn't that big a thing to fuss over.

[jcuknz]

A photograph should not be disfigured except for commercial reasons. Usually photographs can be edited to remove watermarks so it is a pointless exercise. Any photograph being posted is an invitation to piracy and one can only rely on the integrity of the viewer.

[pnodrog]

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

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

[Brev00]

I don't watermark. In some cases watermarking is like a tattoo. If it degrades the overall subject, which is most often the case, I abhor it. If it somehow stays out of the way or somehow has a positive effect, than I am fine. A lot, I think, depends on its design, size, color, and placement. Logos I consider obnoxious will often keep me from leaving a positive comment.

[brannend]

I have actually had a lot of my own shots in which the watermark seems to have improved them (they can cover up a lot of stupid mistakes) I am trying to get better though.

If the original intent of the question was meant to request an OPINION, then here's mine;

If I look at an image that has been submitted to this site for C & C or in a competition, I prefer no watermark and no border. I want to judge the image on itself, not some really cool watermark or fancy borders. Matting is for prints in my mind and watermarks are for promotion of your business.

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.