Ask yourself a simple question, it's 2019 and digital pretty much everything is and has been in full swing for a while now, do you still watermark your images? I do, I have no plans on stopping, and apparently it really upset someone on Instagram recently.
To make a long story short, I recently received a direct message on Instagram from someone I've never met or spoken to about the watermark I place in my photos. It went something like this (paraphrasing): “Hey bro, your work is good but make your watermark go away. No one wants that in their portfolio, it's easily removed so there is no need for it, it's a dated way to enforce ownership, and you need to join us in the 21st century”. No introduction, no hello or greeting from this person I've never met, just straight to the point, this fellow hates watermarks, has strong opinions about them, and felt compelled to share them with me.
My initial reaction was "whoa dude, this guy is really passionate about this though it feels like he's making a mountain out of a molehill." Let's take a minute and unpack the whole thing, address this guy's concerns, and see if we can't come to a fair consensus on watermarks and 2019. First, I feel that any watermark you place should be subtle, generally at lower opacity and somewhat hidden within the frame. I think this is important to note, a watermark shouldn't be the first thing people see. We're not looking to detract from our image, let the work be what people see first and foremost. Watermarks are pretty exclusively used for social media versions of images as any other use (print for example) wouldn't make much sense.
The notion that it's easily removed only makes sense if you assume that the purpose of a watermark is to act as a deterrent of some kind against image theft. To that point, I would agree that the presence of a watermark does not serve that purpose. Whether it's via a quick crop or simple Photoshop, if a person really wants a watermark removed they are going to make it happen quickly and easily. To that end, all we have to do is a simple realignment in how we think about marks. They are less a security stamp and more than anything simply a digital signature from the artist.
The idea that no one wants it in their portfolio is also a little silly as a printed portfolio should always receive the file without a watermark. I am hesitant to call Instagram or Facebook a portfolio (though they generally serve a very similar purpose these days) and thus have no qualms about sending a model a social media resolution image with a subtle watermark. In the event that someone you work with has cropped out your watermark, instead of being upset, ask yourself if that is a sign that perhaps your mark was too distracting in the first place.
The last point this stranger made indicated I needed to, “join us in the 21st century”. First of all, who is us and why should I join them? Is this guy recruiting anti-watermark sentiment for some new empire? Second, what does the 21st century have to do with anything? If the point is that watermarks are a thing of the past, clearly that just doesn't prove to be true. If a watermark (when used intentionally) is the social media version of a signature, that's certainly relevant in every century.
Let's recap and try to be clear about a couple things: firstly a watermark is a personal choice and no one can tell you whether you should or shouldn't use one. If you're not feeling it, no sweat don't use one at all. If you do choose to use one, be subtle and make sure that you're not detracting from your work; know that it's only for the social media version of any given image. I've always found simplicity to be key, don't over think it, keep things simple and subtle and you'll probably be just fine. Know that the purpose in this day and age isn't security, by putting images on the internet you accept that they are never going to be 100% secure.
Lastly, I'll leave everyone with some friendly advice. When you message a total stranger, I would suggest introducing yourself first, think of it like a greeting or an e-handshake. Be kind, be friendly, and ask questions. Try to start a conversation rather than being confrontational. A little conversation can go a long way and be infinitely more productive for all involved. If you'd like to connect with me on Instagram with any questions, comments, or concerns I would love to hear from you. Let's chat and be friendly acquaintances, let's be productive together. The world already has enough people online shouting at each other, arguing, and trolling to no real end. If we all strive to be a friendlier voice, the internet might just end up a better place.
I've had complaints about watermarks as well in the past. So I changed nothing. It's a way to tell me a photo is valuable to someone, only they want it free. If they are that easy to remove, where is the problem with doing it on his own and move on?
Completely agree. There's a blatant inconsistency in their argument; this is easy so why are you making me do it?
I know I can't stop someone stealing my photos. That's not really the intent behind my watermarks. My intent is more brand awareness for when the image is being used by someone else.
Thieves are not a thing of the past…
The question real is "are watermarks really useful?"
That is actually a good question and I say yes. There is nothing wrong with your name being exposed, that's a very basic form of advertising which is all what social media is about.
Signature and watermark are two different things.
I agree for the use of the signature.
But a watermark will generally spoil the general aspect of your image.
You just said it... YOUR image. If you want to use a watermark so subtle that it can barely be seen, or if you want to stamp it across the middle of the image in fuchsia Comic Sans, it's YOUR image. Someone on social media being upset with me over something that only affects me would only compel me to burn it deeper into future images. He's probably one of those instagram 'curators' who just reposts other's work without credit.
"Thieves are not a thing of the past…"
Absolutely true, as we can see on your avatar....
What???
Your Avatar is the trademark of an French company (La Vache qui rit)... ;)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/thumb/2/27/Logo_La_vache_qui_r...
In the US it's advertised as the Laughing Cow, same company. It's still infringement.
Oh I did not know, that you can buy it in the US. ;)
I try look past them but sometimes they are the best bit of the photo.
The carefully scripted signature with block letters under, positioned nicely at centre bottom on frame.
Then you get the baby and lifestyle ones. Anywhere but inconspicuous, usually next to a head, or arm.
It’s an art form of it’s own and some people are obviously proud to have it there. Even if it stands out more than the photo itself.
I personally don't like a watermark but what you do with your work is none of my business. That said your watermark is great. I was like what is he talking about theres no watermark haha I eventually actually looked for it and saw it. But its so subtle and it really doesn't take wany from the photos.
I just hate them
Just don’t put it in the middle of your photograph like an idiot. Mine is small and always in the bottom left away from anything important. There are plenty of other ways to ruin your own photos in post.
Watermarks aren’t just a way to safeguard your image, IMO it’s an essential element of branding.
I believe watermarking is nuts. Why shouldn't the photographer have there name somewhere on every image or ad or photo used in a story, why do we do all the work but not receive the credit, i often rifle thru magazines that have written content i care nothing about I'm only there to see the images in the ads and then left wondering man I'd love to know who shot this so i can see more of their work.
Photographers need to contractually negotiate with the publisher/magazine that their copyright attribution with URL credit line MUST be included whenever their images are published in editorial, news, and other non-commercial print and/or electronic media.
In addition, I HATE seeing an article’s writer being acknowledged with a large 12-point-size font byline, while the photographer’s attribution only gets a tiny 8-point-size font: At the very least, the photographer’s byline size should match the writer’s. This, too, can be negotiated contractually.
If you’re a famous celebrity photographer, you can often negotiate an additional fee if the advertisement includes your photography attribution (endorsement). For example, “The 2010 designer collection of …photographed by Annie Leibovitz.
I like your watermark, very subtle. This year, five of my weddings booked, are from people that copied my photos from someone's feed. They simply googled the name on the photo to find me. So that's at least 25K in income just because it.
My photography isn't good enough to watermark.
😂
Same here.
I think the opposite, if your work is strong enough and people can recognise your work you don’t need one. I stopped using them about five years ago.
This. I recognise Evan's work without having to look at the watermark. If you have a distinctive style there's no need for one. Plus most people you collaborate with will tag you on social media anyway. I've noticed they are not as common as they used to be which is a good thing.
I'm still not sure that I agree with this. It doesn't matter how distinctive your style is, the first time I see one of their images I have no idea who the photographer is. Second or third time I see one of their photos, I still probably don't. I need a body of work so that I can recognise the consistency of their style. If I see that body of work in an environment where you are getting credit, I'll get there quicker. If it is being anonymised, let alone "claimed" by someone else, it will take me a lot longer.
I say if you want to, do it. I don't, but I honestly don't think anyone would steal my pictures to sell. Besides that, I don't sell pictures or do it for a job anyway. Well, with the exception of with my drone, but that's a different thing all together as they never get posted on Instagram and such and are directly for clients.
Personally if I was to start selling photos I would do it, but I'd do it in secret. Under a layer or hidden deep within the photo so I could prove it was mine if I needed.
"... I recently received a direct message on Instagram from someone I've never met or spoken to about the watermark I place in my photos. It went something like this (paraphrasing): “Hey bro, your work is good but make your watermark go away. No one wants that in their portfolio, it's easily removed so there is no need for it, it's a dated way to enforce ownership, and you need to join us in the 21st century”."
People on the internet are fuckin' weird, man.
I think subtle watermarks are fine as long as they don't interfere with the composition, subject or mood and all of that. Some people include big & elaborate watermarks which, except in the case of snapshots intended as pure promotion, look ridiculous.
My best practice is to TIMELY register all my photographs with the US Copyright Office BEFORE releasing them on-line (or registering them within three-months of first-publication).
I continue to affix a “cool-looking” watermark LOGO, metadata, copyright attribution, and/or other “Copyright Management Information” (CMI) to my posted web and social media images.
Among other important business and legal benefits, CMI is my electronic business card, making it easy for fans and new clients/licensees to easily follow and contact me, especially if my images aren’t showing up on a reverse Internet image search. CMI also helps keep my image from being “orphaned.”
Most importantly, US-based infringers who use Photoshop or another editing software to knowingly remove, change, or cover up CMI to hide their copyright infringements or to further induce infringements can be financially liable from $2,500 to $25,000 PLUS the photographer’s attorney fees PLUS legal costs, AND other remedies (at the court’s discretion). The GREAT news here is that a timely registered copyright is NOT required to pursue CMI (DMCA) violations. I’m seeing more and more copyright litigators pursue CMI violations. See 17 USC §§ 1202-1203
.
In addition, the removal or modification of CMI can be deemed a WILLFUL copyright infringement action; if the image was timely registered, statutory money damages can range from $30,000 to $150,000, PLUS the photographer’s attorney fees PLUS legal costs (at the court’s discretion).
With the points I’ve outlined, affixing a creatively-designed watermark logo (and other CMI) provides much more benefits than not including any attribution. Just ask a copyright litigator.
It feels like that the people who are complaining about watermarks are mostly photographers and NOT paying clients who are looking to hire assignment photographers, license the watermarked image, or purchase (gallery) prints.
If I have the exact image that a client needs, my watermark logo photograph will not deter them from contacting me. They’ll reach out to me, requesting that I send them an un-watermarked image so they can show the image to their executives; I’ll just include metadata.
No image water makers are not a thing of the past. Especially when you have a lot of image theft in Australia within equine world.
I'm in Australia, (I assume you are too) & I'd be interested to know more about why the theft in that particular genre is particularly bad.
Hi Campbell Sinclair--You should consider registering your equine images with the US Copyright Office (USCO).
If your images are being infringed in your country, I have to believe that they’ll eventually be infringed in the US and in other countries.
International creatives who live in a Berne Convention signatory country (Australia) do not have to register their copyrights with the US Copyright Office to have legal standing to sue in a US federal court. However, they are only eligible to pursue “actual damages” (typically the missed licensing fee) and the disgorgement of profits (if any!) against US-based infringers. Too often, attorney fees will out-strip any settlement or court award, making it a financial losing bet to go after infringers located in the United States.
On the other hand, a “timely” register copyright (BEFORE the infringement occurs or WITHIN three-months of first-publication) provides Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and other international photographers the right to pursue enhanced statutory money damages and the potential recoupment of attorney fees against US-based infringers. This provides the photographer’s American attorney LEVERAGE to push for (quicker) out-of-court settlements. Assuming the unlicensed artwork doesn’t fall within Fair Use (Fair Dealing), infringers who choose not to settle and don’t prevail during trial, are now liable for up to US$150,000 in money damages + attorney fees + full legal costs (both at the court’s discretion).
As well, the copyright “Certificate of Registration” that the USCO mails you will be your “presumptive proof” of your copyright’s validity & ownership. I also have to believe that a Certificate of Registration issued by the United States Copyright Office could be used in your country to help prove your photography authorship and copyright ownership, especially if Australia doesn’t have a governmental copyright registration formality.
It’s good that you watermark your images! US-based parties who remove or modify a watermark, logo, copyright attribution, licensing information, metadata, and other “Copyright Management Information” (CMI) to hide their infringing actions are subject to statutory damages (US$2,500 to US$25,000)--this legal option does not require the image to be registered! Attorney fees are also available. I’m seeing more and more US attorneys using this strategy to pursue US infringers, especially when the photographers didn’t timely register their copyrights.
If you want to go down this route, I would have thought it made more sense to register with your own country's copyright office. After all, if you have to take someone to court, the copyright case will be held in the country where the infringement took place. Given that this is most likely to be in your own country, using the copyright office of another territory just seems like an unnecessary complication.
Even if the infringement was in the US, the international treaties (which isn't just the Berne Convention) give you the ability to use your local, foreign copyright registration against a US citizen using US copyright laws. And let's be honest, the motivation to sue someone in a foreign country is always going to be lower than suing someone in your country, all other factors being equal.
So you don't lose anything. You just move where red-tape complications away from where you would be most likely to raise an infringement case.
Graham Goodman wrote “Even if the infringement was in the US, the international treaties (which isn't just the Berne Convention) give you the ability to use your local, foreign copyright registration against a US citizen using US copyright laws.”
Berne does NOT require member-country photographers to have any formal registration when pursuing international infringers.
Specifically to infringements committed by US-based infringers: To be clear, international (non-USA) photographers who belong to a Berne Convention signatory country (most all countries) do NOT have to register their photo copyrights with the US Copyright Office to have “legal standing” to pursue a US-based infringers in a US court, as no formal registration is required per Berne; however, US residents MUST register in order to bring a copyright infringement action in US federal court.
The benefit for both US and international photographers “timely” registering their copyright claims, is that they can pursue statutory money damages (from US$750 to US$150,000) and attorney fees and legal costs against the US-based infringer (assuming the infringement is NOT within Fair Use). With something like 95% of all US copyright infringement actions settling out of court, a timely registration provides the US attorney with LEVERAGE to push the US infringer to settle.
Works NOT timely registered with the US Copyright Office are typically not economical to pursue, as the ability to pursue actual damages and disgorgement of profits (instead of statutory damages) will be greatly out-weighed by the cost to litigate the infringement action. Photographers, whose images are not timely registered, waive their rights to pursue their attorney fees and legal costs against US-based infringers.
I don’t use them, probably never will.. I have no issue with people using them but there are some cases where it annoys me. Particularly when you see bang average photographers plastering them on their images, there have been several discussions on a Facebook group I used to be a member of and literally to a man the people saying ‘I’m not having someone stealing my images’ generally don’t have images worth stealing, but they are of the opinion that they are. Perhaps that’s a wider issue though.
The guy messaging the author is an idiot either way.
Yep, generally the more gaudy and obtrusive the watermark is, the worse the photographer is.
And their opinion of said ability tends to not match the reality either haha.
There are billions of images out there. If someone hates watermarks there are plenty of other images they can go look at for free.
For professionals watermarks serve a valuable legal purpose. The removal of a watermark is taken by courts as an indicator of wilful infringement, which carries a stiffer penalty than an innocent infringement. In the US removal of a watermark is an offence under Section 1202 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which makes it illegal for someone to remove the watermark from your photo so that they can disguise the infringement when used. The fines start at $2500 and go to $25,000 in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.
Though I somewhat agree with the sentiments of the person who reached out to you, I don't understand why anyone would think it's any concern of theirs. It's pretty amazing, really, that they reached out to you to complain about your watermark.
That being said, I see a difference between a "watermark" and a watermark. What I mean by that is there's a difference between a subtle mark of branding (an artists signature, if you will) and a ginormous thing scrawled across the image. Your examples are certainly the former; tasteful, subtle, and imbuing professionalism. The latter example I speak of (I'm sure we know what I'm talking about), however, are just hideous and amateurish, in my opinion; leaving the viewer with the watermark itself embedded in their mind rather than the image. Which I can't think is a good thing.
There are three concepts involved that get conflated into the single term "watermark."
Back in the print days, and with less but not zero validity today, sample prints provided to retail clients for selection as enlargements were marked "PROOF" or something similar boldly across the photograph. The explicit intent was to prevent the image the image from being enjoyable--only identifiable. That wasn't needed for commercial images because the contract had already been signed. That, traditionally, had been what a "watermark" was in photography (and that's not the same meaning as "watermark" in lithography).
There is also the concept of branding, which is also still valid today, as has been discussed in this thread. With branding, the intention is that the image is enjoyable--the opposite of "watermarking." Artists have branded their work for centuries. Some people want to brand their images, some don't. Some do branding poorly, others don't.
Painters signing their paintings is so 11th century too. It’s your image. You created it. Do what you want with it.
If the images look like they could have been taken by anyone - like sports photography for example - then I get it. But if the images in question are meant to "say" something and have a strong visual style that's unique to the person that made them then watermarks drastically cheapen the images.
I am too old school...I never use watermarks ...but I also dont use instagram. I have my website and word of mouth. I am even debating getting rid of crack book. I like this type of social media its more magazine based with mostly quality photoraphers engaging in decent discussions. The only change I would make to this site is making people accountable for their ratings. You should see who rated your images...but thats not the subject...I digress.
So, should all the greats remove their signature(s) from their works or Art? Why in the world would anyone be opposed to the artist signing their work. A photograph is more than just an iPhone shot, there often times is work, editing and not to mention lighting and the artist's skill to produce a great shot. I not only place my water mark on all my images, I embed all my information and copyright information within every picture.
Hi Evan. I basically agree with you as I also consider it as a personal thing. But I don't like watermarks neither on my pictures nor on others. E.g. your photograph with the watermark is in a certain way 'damaged'. Watermarks should be designed in a way that they meet the style of the photograph in colour and font style - this is definitely a lot of work to do. And I think watermarks don't help very much.
That ugly watermark is critically important when some scum-sucking-piece-of-rat-puke steals your photo! Only a couple people got this, so I'm shouting from the top of the comments - and you should edit your post to put this right on top!
That watermark - I hate them as much as anybody - is something called copyright management information. It is the only piece of CMI that the courts have consistently cared about. When the SSPORP removes the watermark, you can file a DMCA action against him or her for $25,000 (you could file for less if really wanted to). The courts have shown that they care. The SSPORP will know your name. There's enough money on the table that your lawyer will return your calls.
In a civilized world, destroying the CMI in your metadata (which doesn't show unless viewed and therefore doesn't ugly up your frame) would count just as much. But we don't live in a civilized world, and the courts - in the US, anyway - don't feel that way.
Why does the silly watermark matter and your copyright doesn't? In the sad and silly world in which we live, you can only qualify for statutory damages for copyright infringement if a number of conditions are met. Unless your SSPORP is the dumbest SSPORP ever to walk the earth, those conditions won't be met. That means that you can only sue for the market value of the stolen work. On a good day, your picture is worth about 20 minutes of lawyer time. Which means you won't sue. If you do sue, our glorious Supreme Court has ruled that you can't do it until AFTER the Copyright Office issues your copyright certificate. Which, since our glorious government funds the CRO as poorly as possible, will be the best part of a year from the time the SSPORP stole your work. The SSPORP knows this. Thus, your copyright means diddly.
On the other hand, the DMCA was designed to protect big corporations, not annoying little photographers. (Actually, to protect big corporations FROM annoying little photographers). Things are different in that world. For cropping off the watermark, you can sue for statutory damages ($2500 to $25,000) straight away, with no need that the SSPORP meet any special conditions that they won't meet.
That ugly watermark is starting to look better and better, huh?
“Hey bro, your work is good but make your watermark go away. No one wants that in their portfolio, it's easily removed so there is no need for it, it's a dated way to enforce ownership, and you need to join us in the 21st century”
Translated:
"Hey bro, your watermark is inconvenient for me when I want to steal it and not give you attribution on my blog. I can easily remove it but I realize that shows I am willfully violating your copyright."
Keep the watermark and be sure that your copyright info is in the EXIF data of your work. Artist sign paintings, why not photographic artists? I read somewhere (whether or not this is true, I don't know), that if you have a watermark on your online work, it makes it easier to pursue a thief of such work in European courts.
Enough said.....
Visible watermark is like IPTC and other metadata, but more visible to the public. It contains information about ownership and rights, but it can be easily removed, which means that not only it does not help against theft but it does not help tracing back a stolen photo to its original source either.
Invisible digital watermark does not prevent from theft but it contains information that stick to you photos even after compression, cropping, filters etc.
Combined with a reverse search system, it will help you find who stole your photos and even which customer's copy it was.
Tested and approvedd by FSToppers !: https://fstoppers.com/review/auto-detect-copyright-infringements-putting...