Copyright Logo

[underwater]

Hello

I am a Mac fan and I am useing Aperture 3 to process my images.
Could some one help me with creating a picture frame and adding my copy write logo to the image ?

I will also need some help in the best way to make a copy write logo.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Samuel,

My strong suggestion is to really think long and hard about whether or not you REALLY want to put a copyright logo and other info on the image itself; personally, I feel that - almost without exception - they ruin the image much the same as a pimple on the face of a model, or a beer can in the corner of a landscape. Additionally - legally - as I understand it, it doesn't give you any additional protection.

[rob marshall]

Samuel

The only time I have added a copyright logo to my shots was when I took some commercial shots that I was being paid for, and the customer wanted to see them (via email) before they finalized (and paid). It stopped them using them on their website without paying for them. Apart from that type of situation a copyright is a waste of time, and as Colin said, can ruin the appearance of an image that is meant to be viewed for pleasure or photographic education..

[Sonic4Spuds]

If you were to add a Copyright mark to an image The only place which I would do that is on a frame if I added one(I usually don't like frames in the digital file either). Adding a digital signature to the file is also acceptable but again I prefer if it is added in the border, or rather inconspicuously, as they can detract from the viewers experience.

-Sonic

[mythlady]

Hi Samuel -- I'm not sure whether you're talking about a watermark, which I see as something semi-transparent that sits temporarily on a picture so that it's not usable by anyone else (until you make a print without it), or a logo, which I see as something that would permanently remain on the picture.

I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but I've recently begun to put a small logo in a bottom corner of my pictures. Since my work is now veering rather sharply away from straight photography and moving into the realm of images, this feels okay to me, and I quite like the look of it at this point:



In Photoshop, I created a line drawing from one of my favorite images, made both light and dark versions of it on a transparent background, and then I put it on a layer over the picture and use the various blend modes to make it fairly unobtrusive. Here's what it looks like, in a size significantly larger than it is on a picture:



Unfortunately, not being a MAC user, I can't give you detailed instructions on how to do it, but I know that Lightoroom has a feature that makes the process of adding a watermark pretty automated, and maybe your program does too. I also had a stamp made out of the image, with which I'll stamp the backs of pictures, price tags, etc., so it really is a kind of brand logo at this point.

All that said, I think that if we're putting pictures on the internet, unless you're putting a big fat watermark across the middle, which spoils the image for anyone looking at it, you really can't protect your work. And my experience -- with the caveat that I am not yet at the true professional level where I need to protect potential income -- is that I've gained a lot more from having my pictures freely available on flickr than I have lost from people misusing my images (and a couple have been misused). I've gotten three magazine publications, had my pictures used (with proper credit) on several blogs that have generated a lot of traffic for me, a picture has been used in a piece of digital paint-by-numbers software (with a link to my smugmug site), and just last week, had an image featured on a website that allows people to create color palettes for interior decorating or art. I keep a close eye on who's using my work and let them know if they're not crediting me appropriately. And at this point, I am moving more toward having my best images on a smugmug site, where people can't download them, but I'm not quite 100% there yet.

[PaulMiller]

Samuel,
If you want to add a border/frame to your images, then I don't think Aperture can do that. There are several plugins that can though (but I havent tried any of them...).
If you want to add a logo or copyright message to your image you can do this on export or printing (search for watermark in the Aperture help menu). Basically, the idea is to create an export preset which includes your watermark image, and then select that preset when you export images that you want to watermark.

I am not a fan of watermarks on images - I find that they are either easily removed, or so obvious that they spoil the image. However, I am not a professional photographer - there are some instances where watermarks are useful.

- Paul

[nickjohnson]

Hello Samuel,
I thought I'd chip in here and offer a view that is different to that expressed by Colin. My view is not “right” or “better” or from a person with a legal background, it's just my view.

I put a copyright notice in all my work posted on the internet. It is small and for the most part unobtrusive. I am not a pro or semi-pro – and have no aspirations to be one. That said, I see no good reason why anyone should use one of my images without my permission. That does not mean that I won't give permission or that I would demand money or anything else in return, I simply feel that it is my right to be asked, before someone else uses my property.

Make no mistake – my copyright notice is trivial to remove and offers no intrinsic protection. What it does do is provide me with a means of demonstrating – to a wrong doer, or a lawyer, or a judge – that the wrong doer knew that they where violating my copyright. That is a very helpful factor here in the UK. In other places it may be of no value at all.

Regards,

Nick.

[Colin Southern]

That said, I see no good reason why anyone should use one of my images without my permission. That does not mean that I won't give permission or that I would demand money or anything else in return, I simply feel that it is my right to be asked, before someone else uses my property.

Hi Nick,

I agree in principle, but unfortunately - in practice - this is usually the digital equivalent of "cutting off ones nose to spite their face". We go to great lengths to frame a great composition - we lovingly process it carefully taking into account the ideal crop - colour accuracy - sharpness - we carefully clone out all things we don't want in there - and then as a final step we completely ruin the shot for the vast majority of people by putting in something that's completely out of place texture & colour & contrast & shape wise.

I made the personal decision to not put any watermarks or copyright writing on my images - and yes, I know of a couple of occasions where they've been used without my permission, but I've adopted the attitude "hey, that's life"; I wouldn't have got any money from those who lifted then anyway, so it's not like it took any money out of my pocket ... but more importantly, it didn't ruin the image for the majority of people.

PS: Guess what comes in at #2 in the list of photo editing offences!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/peo/

(folks need to scroll down a little to see the list).

[Dave Humphries]

If it can be placed, coloured, and blended so it is readable if desired, but not at all distracting, and also contains your e-mail address, then I can see a use for it.

The need for a "naughty person" to remove it, no matter how easily that is done, means they might pick someone else's rather than yours (less trouble) - or use it anyway (with it in situ) and you get free advertising

Like car thieves (alledgedly); give 'em a row of similar cars, some with the windows open or doors unlocked and others secured with no valuables in sight, and guess which will get nicked or broken into first - the easy ones.

I could copyright my pictures, but I am just too lazy to go to all the trouble of suiting the size, colour and position (on a borderless image) to the subject content
I went through a phase of doing that in 2008, but I haven't bothered since.

I do still lock the car though

[Colin Southern]

If it can be placed, coloured, and blended so it is readable if desired, but not at all distracting, and also contains your e-mail address, then I can see a use for it.

Perhaps it's just me, but even with those things, I usually find it STILL leads my eye away from the centre of the image.

I could copyright my pictures, but I am just too lazy to go to all the trouble of suiting the size, colour and position (on a borderless image) to the subject content
I went through a phase of doing that in 2008, but I haven't bothered since.

By law you've copyrighted your image as soon as the shutter closes and the image is written to the card.

[mythlady]

The need for a "naughty person" to remove it, no matter how easily that is done, means they might pick someone else's rather than yours (less trouble) - or use it anyway (with it in situ) and you get free advertising

Or that a legitimate person would pass by your picture and use someone else's -- I'm sure that all the legit publications I've had wouldn't have happened if I'd had a watermark across my pictures.

[Colin Southern]

Or that a legitimate person would pass by your picture and use someone else's -- I'm sure that all the legit publications I've had wouldn't have happened if I'd had a watermark across my pictures.

Perhaps it comes down to which is more important? The "security" of an image, or the desire to share it with others. If people really really really want to ensure that nobody is going to steal it then there's only 1 way to do that ... simply don't put it on the internet - viola - problem solved. In contrast, if one wants to share their images and have them enjoyed by all, then not having something annoying and distracting in that image is the only way to accomplish that. To me - although I hate to see "the naughtly people" in life get away with anything, I'm not going to deliberately ruin my work & decrease it's commercial potential just to spite them. Interestingly, off the top of my head, I don't know of many of the "big names" who put watermarks on their images either.

To me, the irony is that most copyrights can be removed by the bad guys in under 30 seconds - and yet the "good guys" hoping to enjoy the image aren't going to do that just so they can view it without the "warts".

Perhaps it's just me (although I maintain that there's a little bit of "excessive / compulsive disorder" in many photographers), but to me, watermarks on an image are just like a red flag to a bull. Perhaps I need to get a life!

[Black Pearl]

A list of various ways to add a watermark/border in Aperture:

http://www.kremalicious.com/2008/10/...pple-aperture/

[Antonio Correia]

Protect on line photos
@Elise
The image is very very nice Elise...

[mythlady]

Thanks, Antonio -- I like the way it came out.