Watermark? When should I start doing that?

[akkaer1]

I am currently building a profile and I am not sure if I should watermark all the pictures that I post on my facebook page/website/blog. I don’t want there to be confusion on me owning a business vs not wanting my pictures to get stolen. I don’t charge for any of my photos (at least for now) so I don’t (think anyway) need a business license.

Advice?

[cameraclicker]

We discussed watermarks to death on another forum.  I am not a fan of them.  Done poorly, they deface your photo.  And, I can remove them with Photoshop, as can many of the other participants of the other forum.  I have heard two pieces of advice that make sense to me.  The first is to use a watermark if you expect your image to be stolen by someone who cannot remove the watermark and will not destroy your photo trying to remove it.  The second is to put a fairly discreet watermark at the bottom of your photo when posting to Facebook or a similar page where it will probably be reposted.  That lets people who find your photo find their way back to you.  In that case presumably the watermark should be your URL.

Beyond that, Digimark is a nearly invisible watermark that will let you track even a photocopy of your picture if it is scanned and put on the Internet.  The drawback is that they charge for it.

[fstopper89]

Watermarks have a few purposes:

1. To prevent theft of images online for another photographer or other business to use in their own advertising

2. To prevent a client from downloading the image and printing themselves, especially since most of the time online albums are lower resolution and lower quality, and printing at a discount lab will degrade your quality and name

3. To advertise yourself via online sharing

Most photographers and anyone knowledgeable about editing programs can remove MOST watermarks, depending on how large/complicated they are and in what part of a photo they are in. Even if you’re not charging for the photos, it’s perfectly ok for you to watermark them, if you believe someone may use it then in their portfolio and claim it as theirs or if you don’t want people downloading them. I usually watermark many of my photos that weren’t paid shoots, like of friends, mainly because it’s super good advertising. Like, I did some shots of my friend last summer just for fun, after she lost some weight and bought a new wardrobe, and I watermarked them. She shared them on her Fb profile and made a few into profile pictures. It got a lot of people then looking up my page and asking to have photos done. I save SEPARATE files. In each client’s folder on my computer, I have the full-resolution edits, and then another folder of downsized and watermarked images for posting online. When clients buy the full-resolution files or prints, they do not have the watermark on them. Some photogs will make prints with a very small watermark, but many clients dislike that, and sometimes it’s the deciding factor in booking a photographer. I’ve personally experimented with different watermarks. I’ve had just my name in a corner of the image, larger but at 50% opacity, but now I have my name in small text running across the bottom or side. I change it up sometimes, but I don’t feel like it really defaces my image. I’ve seen some horribly gaudy watermarks, or watermarks that have huge colorful logos, or watermarks that the photog tried to integrate into the photo “creatively” that look dumb.

[IHF]

Watermarking doesn’t stop theft or printing in any way.  If someone wants your image bad enough nothing will stop them, not even disabling right click.

so for me they are simply for marketing.  So when you or others share everyone can see who was behind them.  If you aren’t marketing your services, I really don’t see the point of water marking.

I’ve been selling  fine art (I feel silly calling it that but for lack of better words…).  I started out watermarking every one I posted, but I hated it.  Started thinking about why I was doing it, and decided to stop using the watermark.  People were downloading them for desktops and wallpaper for their computers and devices anyway, and why not just be flattered by it.  I plan on eventually having higher quality desktop/wallpaper downloads available for free that will have my website info on them though, because it bothers me to think they are using compressed Facebook images and screen shots ewwwwww. And it would be like a little digital business card of sorts (But first I need to get more serious and actually have a proper web site lol).  Thievery can happen, and it will.  Some clients will just find a way.  I think it’s more important to offer quality service and products, watermark, or not to watermark, just isn’t all that important in the scheme of things. I mean lets say you have a client that loves you, spreads the word about you and even gave you several solid leads/referrals , and you see they have scanned images from their session on their facebook, or cropped your watermark before they shared them, or whatever.  Would you really get all “don’t do that!” On them?  I think word of mouth is way stronger than any watermark would ever be.  I may be  more lax just because I sell art and not photography services, and no one wants to steal my images to try to make money off of them lol  but to me they just aren’t necessary.

 

[IHF]

Look at it this way.  Only we as the photographer have the ability, expertise, and own what we need to make the finished product, unless of course your finished product is digital files and not photographs, then you might have more of  a problem.  Even then, people are going to nab, even if you ask them not to.  It’s a digital age, and making a huge stink about it and/or watermarking the poop out of your work just looks bad.

[akkaer1]

Thank you all for the inputs. Really helps a lot.

Haven’t exactly decided if I am going to use a watermark or not but I am feeling better seeing both sides to this subject. Also, thank you for the digimark idea. Maybe once I feel comfortable charging clients I can do that.

I am more worried about someone stealing the images and charging for services using my images (not saying I have super stellar work, but it is a lot better than the fauxtogs) And no longer am I surprised at what they do.

Thank you again everyone!

[kbee]

I see what people mean when they say watermarking is tacky or won’t prevent theft. In my years as a recreational web designer, though, I’ve learned one thing: if people can right-click and save it, you bet your buttons they’ll take it. And in the caliber of the fauxs featured here at YANAP, they either won’t care enough to remove the mark or they’ll do such a botched job of it it’s laughable. (Mmm, clone stamp!) So while a watermark doesn’t prevent the theft, I do feel vindicated and bemused to see my marked work on other sites. It just makes them look like asses to be “Uncle Bob’s Photography” with “kbee’s art” branded on it, for example.

And more importantly, as the others have said: it’s marketing. Just to have your name out there, with the photo, so people know someone took a photo, and that this is their name.

As a somewhat related example, my sister in law gave me a print of a photo of my nephew. I was wondering who the photographer was, though there was no watermark (clearly). I was pleased to turn it over and find the tog’s name on the back. So I’m always looking for and grateful for a name to a piece of work.

But that said, big nasty neon colored Comic Sans/Papyrus/Cowboy watermarks are the devil. Something clean, simple, relatively discreet is always nice. I have a 60% transparency overlay watermark with sans serif text and my initials stylized. I have yet to use it, but I’m certain to keep it discreet and not eye-poppingly bad.

[Brownie]

Don’t.

 

If you do anything, embed your information in the metadata of the photograph so that way if it does show up somewhere without your permission, the photograph will have the copyright already in it, and then they are totally liable.

[kbee]

Excellent point, Brownie, and one I didn’t even think about. Reminds me to pay more attention to that when I mess around with my photos.

That said, metadata can be lost or stripped, can it not? eg. Social media sites stripping the data out when you upload. Just made me curious.

[dont.care]

I personally believe if you have the original raw/jpeg of the image–You have enough to prove copyright infringement if it were ever taken to such an extent. Generally speaking, the EXIF data can be scrubbed and rewritten.. With a little wit and technical skill in photoshop; the content aware utility can generally erase most watermarks.. So, unless you’re stamping across the image in such a way that would destroy the photographs viewability by slapping a giant watermark on it–they can be removed, which technically by all rights renders them useless, or the photograph useless as a selling point/proof..

[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.

[fstopper89]

I personally haven’t played with metadata, after hearing how it can be changed. One of my photog friends swears by it though.

It sounds like the general consensus here is that the only thing a watermark is really good for is marketing yourself via social media/websites.

If a client really wants to download a photo off of Facebook, crudely edit out the watermark (most clients probably have no idea how to use Photoshop) and then print it, it’s sort of their loss- they’ll end up with a grainy, 72-dpi crappy print. I’d be mad if they went around showing their friends that that was a print made by their professional photographer they hired because people would look at it and say “uh, really?” not realizing it was downloaded off FB and printed at Walmart. Though most people with half a brain would realize what happened.

I’d be very flattered if someone wanted one of my non-portrait photos to make their computer desktop or phone wallpaper. It’s possible it has happened already, with them being on Flickr available at “large” size for others to view (and right-click download). Honestly all I’d want is a person to message me saying “Hey, can I use this photo as my computer desktop?” I’d say yes. As long as no one is taking one of my photographs and posting it on their own site/page claiming they took it and potentially making money off of it, I don’t really care.

[Nightrose]

I include metadata and a watermark on my Facebook and other online images. Not because I think this will stop people pinching my photos (and removing said information), but  more for advertising purposes. I also only upload reduced images which could be printed out as a 6×4 but nothing much bigger than that (without it completely pixellating). Basically if you put something up on the internet, it is fair game so if you don’t want it nicked, don’t upload it!

[stef]

All metadata is stripped on facebook photos, btw.

[cameraclicker]

All metadata is stripped on facebook photos, btw.

So I see.  I filed a bug report.

[Author]

Posts