Watermarked Photos, whatcha think?

[ScottieMommy]

What do you think of this watermark? I read a thread the other day and seen people online actually steal photos from forums as using them as their own. For xmas i am getting a really good cam and i want to start putting watermarks on my pics. What do you think? Is this good enough? Just a quick sample.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/HammiLover15/generated812512420.jpg


It will say "Leila's Photography"

[Kfamr]

Eh, I'm not a fan of "watermarks" across the whole photo, especially one with such opacity. It takes away from the photos, IMO. While people can still photoshop them out, a lot of professionals just use one of the bottom corners.

[ScottieMommy]

Thanks, and another question i wanted to ask you. What cam do you own? I was thinking on getting one of those. I heard you talking about it the other day. I LOVE the photos it takes. My cam is over 8 years old worn out :(

[Kfamr]

I currently have two cameras - Canon PowerShot SD1000 and a Canon Rebel XTi. The newest photos I took were with the XTi, but I don't recommend it unless you plan to sell your photography. :)

[ScottieMommy]

Thanks so much, i like the first you named if pretty good.

[Kalei]

I always wondered about the watermarks too. I like them for the fact that it makes it that much harder for someone to take your photo and say its their's. But I like it better when its down in a corner or something:)

[dukedogsmom]

I prefer the watermarks and in the center. There's not much need using them if you're going to put them in the corner. You could just put text there. To each his own.

[Falconara]

I agree with Kay - I only put signatures in the lower right hand corner - usually with a copyright symbol...I think putting them in the center kind of kills the picture...

If they want to steal the pics it isnt hard to photoshop the water mark out - its just a matter of playing around...but not too hard to do if you have a steady hand.

aaand on a side note I am getting ready to blow a chunk of my pre-commissioning loan on a canon 40D with an image stabilized lense...oh gosh I am all twitchy about it :p

[Catlady711]

I currently have two cameras - Canon PowerShot SD1000 and a Canon Rebel XTi. The newest photos I took were with the XTi, but I don't recommend it unless you plan to sell your photography. :)

I haven't sold my photography in years, but I love my new XTi, the advanced features of my SLR with the benefits of a digital and I can use all my old EF lenses on it, can't beat the combo for the price.

[pitc9]

If you just have something little in a bottom corner, can't that just be cropped out??

[Canis-Lupess]

There are the pros and cons to either way.

Sometimes, a small text in the bottom corner just lets people know that the image is copyright and can be enough to deter some people but not those who specifically set out to take what they know they shouldn't.

Watermarks and transparents text are different in that watermarks will disappear if the image is re-saved or something because it isn't embedded or so Mike Sibley told us in the art forum I go to.
The normal transparent text is different and, in photoshop, you can choose how opaque/transparent you want it to be.

I always stick text straight across the centre of the photos of my paintings but with dog photos and such have just put smaller text in the corner. Neither will stop a determined thief with a knack for photoshop unfortunately.
Some people get around this by disabling the right-click option in their websites. Others only post low res images that won't print very well but other people can still take them and post them in other places online and say they are theirs. Deviant art is full of such thieves, mostly younger kids who don't have a clue about copyright and, even if they do, they still do it because it's the only way to get attention and praise in their life.

I have found a couple of my photos being used by ebay traders to advertise stuff and they did both remove them when I messaged them about it. Not everyone is as cooperative mind. Another artist friend of mine has had her stuff taken and used all over the place and some people basically tell her to get stuffed if she requests they stop using the image and withdraw the product they are using it on.

There is always some risk of something from posting images online no matter what you do with it. Text straight across the image will make it a bit harder and more time-consuming for a thief to take, especially if you put it over an area that will be hardest to remove it from but then you have the issue of it destracting from the image.
With small text, it can be cropped out or much more easily cloned out as it is most likely covering background or foreground that might be out of focus and blurry or part of a larger plain area that is the same like grass.....

Posting low res and at small size means the image can't be fully appreciated. Saving the quality to be as low as possible while retaining a decent size is another option. It won't print very well for starters.

[sandragonfly]

I agree with kay about professional looking but text across the pictures is better because, like canislupess said, harder; time consuming & a lot of hard work for a perfection. especially when they are posted online. I used to do that when I first came back here but it was too much work. every time I see anyone else's or your great pictures kay, I always worry.

this is why all of my pictures threads are always and have been posted in smallest resolutions (no bigger than 300x200 and 400x300 on landscapes) as much as people can see details in it and in all of it, there are hidden texts - you can't see them until I do an effect and point it out if I or anyone caught anyone. but I am really not worried about that, there are a lot more of limitations than for the bottom copyright one, and again, too small to do much with it.

[ScottieMommy]

Thanks everyone for all your help :P

[dukedogsmom]

I guess when it comes down to it, if they want it, they'll get it somehow. Like I said, to each his own. I just prefer the watermark because it is harder to remove.

[Kfamr]

I just really think the "watermark" takes too much away. Honestly, if someone wants to crop/repost my photos and claim it as their own, it's not going to hurt me. *I* know who originally took the photo. If they REALLY wanted to they could even claim to be Kay Knapp, "Leila's Photography", or whoever else and keep the text in the photo. It's actually rather easy to photoshop "watermarks" out and doesn't take too much time.

Besides, it'd be rather hard for them to get money out of a resized photo. To create a quality print you would need the original photo. A photo I resize for the forums (or anywhere I post them) will not make a quality print. Even if a company saw a photo they were claiming, they'd ask for the original. In that case, they wouldn't have the original.

I put my name on the photos for two reasons. 1, to deter others from taking it. 2, to get my name out there. As I'm starting my freelance photography, I'm trying to get my name out there. I've already had one person see pictures I've taken on someone's MySpace (with my permission) and they've contacted me to do a session.

[K9soul]

I understand putting something on a photo if you want to identify it as yours but unless you make your living off your photography or have photos of something spectacular and rare, I don't see why people worry so much about someone else posting a photo and claiming its theirs. Sure it's lame and if I found someone posting pictures of my dogs and saying the photos were theirs I'd say something to them, but it's not something I'm going to sweat over trying to prevent. I personally think smacking a water mark in the middle of a picture just to post on a forum is a bit much, and it truly does distract away from the photo for me. I can certainly understand when a pro photographer with an online gallery to showcase their work does it though.

[crow_noir]

The problem is when people calling themselves breeders steal photos of others' dogs so they can make a quick buck. (off of people who buy dogs and puppies sight unseen.)

There's a couple that are notorious for it and the authorities have yet to catch them. They change kennel names often and surf the web all over. Even when people have found their dog posted elsewhere online they don't know who to contact.

[sandragonfly]

with great pictures anyone makes, I'd hate if someone else ruins it because it's not right claiming as theirs if it's not. it just is not. you pay the photographer. you pay to download a music. you pay for a page of thumbnail designs.. list goes on. you can deter theives but also deter scandals.

again, I really don't have problem with mine, many pet talkers and I too know I've been posting them and we can just point it out when needed. sometimes I'd have PMs asking me if I could make pictures a bit bigger so they can see them better, wasn't a problem emailing them in originals.

I forgot to mention - as a picture thread devoter - I started smallize my pictures so it'd be easier for dailuppers here. there were so many pet talkers complaining about how long it takes to upload the page and it has been a habit since (and easier work as it'd only border-frame any pictures less than 400x400 all at once). no...I'm not exactly lazy. :p

I once saw a website that had three watermarks in each picture. :o I can understand, especially going through this experience of stealing. they were nice color-striking pictures!

I'd do what kay does, only on my own website - more work effort and it's more official (and professional) there. but here, it's only a pet forum. kay, just so you know your pictures CAN be printed in 3x5 and 4x6 in some companies without grains.

[.sarah]

I don't worry about watermarks on the picture as much as I worry about embedding it in the picture. As soon as I take photos off of my camera I embed my copyright information in the image. This means that if someone saves it and edits out my watermark on the image, my contact information (website, city, and business phone # for me) are still in the image. You can't take that out. If they were to save all of my photos on a CD and take them to a lab, my copyright information is still there and the photos should not be printed. I feel safer with that there.

I do think it's a little silly to watermark at all if you are not looking to sell your photos, but I can understand the concern. I go back and forth as to whether or not my photos will have a watermark just to post on forums, but my information is always embedded in each and every photo I post. I just started my website where you can purchase my photos online (although the prices aren't up there yet but will be soon) and I have my information embedded in the photos AND a watermark with my website name on it. I did that for several reasons, but one is because the photos show up larger on this website than if I had resized them myself and I don't want anyone to make a small print from it.

But, then again, I am a "professional photographer" (though that still seems odd to me!) and I am now doing engagement photos, weddings, etc. and I feel like I need to protect my images very well.

[.sarah]

Okay, it's been pointed out to me that it's easier than I thought to get rid of embedded info too.

.... If you post your photos online, you're at risk for people stealing them. But, depending on what you want to gain out of putting them on the internet, the benefits could be better ... you could gain clients, etc. I don't really worry TOO much about people stealing them because I figure I'm the only one who has the original. I never, ever give out my original photos unless if I trust someone whole-heartedly with them.

[Alysser]

I use watermarks because it's harder to get them out of the photo then if they are in the corner. Honestly, they just work for me. But the letters are very visible. You need to fade them more. Nena is beautiful. As for cams I recommend Nikon or Canon.

[ScottieMommy]

I remember like a month ago in the other forum i belong to this 12 year old girl would steal photos from Google and what not. And worse of all her exuses where LAME. She kept saying they where hers when you can perfectly see them on Google and i even posted link and yet she still claimed them! After all the fighthing she was caught, she stole over 7 photos or more and got in trouble with her mom. Never seen her online since then.

[dukedogsmom]

Actually, I was mainly asking about it for Ebay. I tried it out on my last pics here to see how it worked. I didn't realize it would be such a touchy subject. I also understand that my pics aren't that great, as compared to others. I guess I'm too sensitive because a few things said here hurt. I need to get a thicker skin.

[Kfamr]

Actually, I was mainly asking about it for Ebay. I tried it out on my last pics here to see how it worked. I didn't realize it would be such a touchy subject. I also understand that my pics aren't that great, as compared to others. I guess I'm too sensitive because a few things said here hurt. I need to get a thicker skin.


I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would be hurt by anything said in here. I don't see anyone getting touchy, just expressing their opinions on the subject.

I apologize if it was anything I said.

[cyber-sibes]

I understand copyright issues, but honesty on a site like this, I find it extremely annoying to have someone's name right smack across the center of a photo. I'd rather you just don't post it if your that worried about somone downloading it. Using low res is a good solution because if someone's taking it, they really can't use it for anything useful besides reposting on the internet. It will look awful if they try to print it, enlarge it, etc.

It's a different matter in the case of professionals, whose work really is copyrighted.

[Catlady711]

It's a different matter in the case of professionals, whose work really is copyrighted.


Actually every photographers work is copyrighted from the moment they press the shutter button, professional or otherwise. It might be different if the pix were registered as well for additional 'proof' it's your pix.

Either way, I believe that each photographers pix, from the complete newbie to the advanced professional, has a right to not have their images stolen and has a right to be concerned about it happening.

[K9soul]

Actually, I was mainly asking about it for Ebay. I tried it out on my last pics here to see how it worked. I didn't realize it would be such a touchy subject. I also understand that my pics aren't that great, as compared to others. I guess I'm too sensitive because a few things said here hurt. I need to get a thicker skin.

Val, I have never seen photos of yours that had water marks, my post was in response to the original poster who asked people's opinions on them. It wasn't meant in an angry tone or directed at anyone in particular. I just know I am a bit distracted by a water mark across the photo. It doesn't make the photo bad and it doesn't make me angry, I just am distracted by them. My point was just that if all someone is doing is using a photo to post on the board to share their pets, I don't see a real need for them for that sole reason. I did not mean a photo had to be a pro-photo to "deserve" a water mark. A water mark doesn't make a picture more or less valuable in my eyes. I meant I understand more why pros do because it's their career and I can see why theft would be more of a worry. That's just my thought on it. I hope this clarifies. I didn't mean anything I said to be hurtful to anyone.

[dukedogsmom]

Sorry guys. Read things the wrong way. I guess I'm overly sensitive right now. It's Duke's one year mark this weekend.