Reply To: Watermark? When should I start doing that?

[stef]

Metadata is far easier to strip than a watermark.

 

Stock houses use a large watermark that contains information on how to order it without completely obscuring the image. stuckincustoms uses no watermark and distributes high-rez images, but has a licensing dept that chases violators of their usage terms. There are all sorts of ways that people can distribute with and without watermarks that are more or less effective.

 

But the biggest lesson is that, generally, nobody wants to steal your image. They might not pay for images, but the likelihood of you losing money is very small. If you’re really concerned, use a combination visible and steganographic watermark. If you really think you have a winning image, either don’t publish it, put prints only in a gallery, or license it to a stock house.

 

I’ve had my own images “stolen” by a small business (by violating my usage terms when they stripped my watermark but didn’t add my URL back in) when I did a shoot for an event at which they presented. You know what I did? Nothing. However, I have a lot of other images they want, and you can bet that they’re going to give me a signed statement itemizing the usage conditions with a fee assessed per image if they violate it again. I also had no incentive to provide them with more images, but instead concentrated on the other businesses that did comply with my usage terms.