Let go of the fear and leave your logo and watermark off your images. You will get more work and recognition because of it.
When I started out in photography, the people around me constantly talked of their fears of having images stolen. They talked of making sure nothing high-res ended up out in the world and that it was paramount to have a watermark on an image to avoid theft from clients and other photographers.
In hindsight, it is laughable. No one wanted to steal my photographs back then, they were horrendous. I am pretty sure that there really aren’t that many people today who want to steal them either.
As the years went out, I went from a Comic Sans watermark of "www.scottchoucino.com," to a logo, and then onto some fancy art deco kind of logo which adorned every image I put out there on the net. Then one day I decided to remove my watermark from the images in my portfolio, instead opting for a disabled right-click to stop theft. I am a bit IT illiterate, so I didn’t think about people screenshotting my website. Still, the actual act of this caused more issues than that, which I will cover later on.
While redesigning my website one year I was looking at a few other photographers' portfolios to see how they were doing it. These were people who I really wanted to be working alongside. I suddenly realized that none of them used watermarks and that most of them didn’t even have a logo. All this branding I had been doing might have been great in the wedding game, but for my aspirations, I was headed in the wrong direction. After speaking to a few other creatives about my fears of people stealing my images, I was reassured that in most instances, it really didn’t matter and that I should go for the absolute best way to showcase my work.
Why Do You Watermark Your Images?
Chances are, when you start out in photography, you are around people who are also starting out or who are a little better. You probably won't be hanging out with Annie Leibowitz. Because of this, the advice you receive is likely to be poor, which is why it can take so long to get off the starting blocks in photography. You will hear someone who already knows how to shoot in manual mode talk about watermarks, and will assume you need them too while you continue to fumble with aperture priority. You feel underappreciated and underpaid when you start out and it feels like everyone is trying to take advantage of you, which they probably are. So you go hardcore on protecting your images. This will probably be the most fear-riddled and defensive you will ever be as a photographer. But don’t worry, you soon realize that none of this matters.
Aesthetic
Lets be frank, any watermark will distract from your image. Text is one of the first things that we notice in images, so having a brand name or even your own name on there just detracts from the work that you have created. Most people who view your work online wont care who shot it as they scroll through Instagram on their way to work. Those who are interested, however, will seek you out regardless of a watermark. If your work stands out on its own and has its own merits, those who need your services will find and book you. I would go as far as saying that your chances of getting booked would be far higher without a watermark than with one as the potential client is far more engaged and active in finding out about you, rather than reading your logo and scrolling on (no data at all to back this up). It also makes you appear to be more premium if you do not have a watermark. I can’t think of any high-end photographers who use them off the top of my head.
Lack of Control of Old Images
When I started out in photography, I did use watermarks. Sadly the image at the top of this article is still online and has some awful font with my web address on it. It is a constant reminder to me of how bad my images use to be, and also a visual reference to some bad work that literally has my name on it. The viewer may not be aware of how many years ago I took the shot, they just know that I took it and that it is bad. So they are pretty unlikely to book me if they came about my work through that image. Reposting it here probably wont help much either!
Ease for Social Media
My phone is forever out of storage space and I often need to quickly get an image for social media use. Most of my Instagram posts that are old shots come direct from my website. I can then crop in Instagram to fit the aspect ratio without having to worry about fitting my watermark in. It is a nice, clean, quick, and simple process for someone who can’t organize their storage properly.
Make Your Client's Life Easier
My clients are often advertisement agencies and not the actual brand that I will be shooting. They often have to put pitches or presentations together at short notice. If they have to email me to get images for this it really slows things down. If they can right-click and save from my website it makes their life a lot easier. Thus, it increases my chances of getting booked for that next campaign.
Who Cares If Your Work Gets Stolen?
It really isn’t the end of the world. My work is passed off as another photographer's work all the time. Companies in China use it for adverts and it pops up on blogs all over the place. I simply do not care. The energy expended in getting angry about this sort of thing is not at all productive. It is far better to put that energy into creating something new. No one is taking work from me by stealing my work, there was no way that they were going to book me or pay me anything if this is the course of action they have taken. It can be annoying, but I think it is better to rise above it and just crack on with your work. There are bad people out there who will do things that we find morally repugnant; it is best to leave them to it.
Let Them Steal Your Work, but Do Invoice
The above doesn’t cover every circumstance though. If I find one of my images on a billboard, you can bet yourself that I will be invoicing them. But not in an aggressive anti-theft, you-are-destroying-photography way. I simply invoice for usage and always get paid. Often someone has the asset on their system and isn’t aware that the usage is no longer available and expired or hadn’t been licensed. The world isn’t out to get us. Some people are careless, misinformed, or simply thought they might chance it.
Do you watermark your work? If so, why?
Oh and no point of our contention, this is a point of your contention. Please don't put words in my mouth. Would you please post the quote.
I'll wait for the " " quote.
Kirk never mind. I just went to your website and you say you are a "Certified Professional Photographer", PPA says you are a member but do not hold "Certified" title.
You even have a video on why people should hire you as a "certified" professional photographer.
You are well aware of what is on your website and what claims you are making. You have even update this information in the last month. I can tell you the number of pages you have claiming to be Certified Professional Photographer. Shame on you.
Please just stop. I can no longer value your input or opinion.
Have a great day.
Bill Wells, thank you for letting me know that I'd let my CPP lapse. Well, dang. But be reassured that I'll take care of that tout suite. All I have to do is re-take the exam on line. Check again by the end of the month.
In the meantime, I don't quite know what to think of someone who is losing an argument and works so hard to find something to make an ad hominem response.
I would say, if you are an honest person you remove all "certified" references on your website, until such time that it is true. You said, "All I have to do is re-take the exam on line. Check again by the end of the month". Do you know that is not correct either. You have to have education credits.
I don't know if there is even value to being certified. Could be, I'm just not sure. I even commend you for even once being certified. Just like the watermark you can or you can't, doesn't matter. What I have an issue with is the misleading information you have.
Just remove the stuff that is not true. It's easy enough. Put it back when it is true. I guess I'm wrong about that as well.
I did notice that you did not refute my lawyer link about watermarks.
Your website was plastered with "I'M CERTIFIED", "I'M CERTIFIED" on almost every page. You even had a video on why people should hire you - Because I'M CERTIFIED.
Here is the other thing. Letting a certification expire does not just happen by mistake. The PPA organization may be guilty of a lot of things, but letter anything expire without giving you notice is not one of them.
You were full aware your certification had expired.
Even worse you updated those web pages after it had expired. So you knew full well what you were declaring in big bold letters on every page, WAS NOT TRUE.
That is what I had issue with. Was that being dishonest? My opinion does not matter.
Oh just so you know. Each nation/country has it's own unique trademark and copyright laws.
Example would be China.
At present there are 175 signatory countries out of 195 countries in the world today. This is not law and should be confused as such. But I understand how it could confuse you, at least when it comes to this debate.
Hi Kirk, here is another example: https://kfor.com/2015/05/26/artist-steals-instagram-photos-sells-them-fo...
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
I voted your comment down because it is simply wrong. Just because you (or whoever wants to steal a photo) doesn't want to spend a few seconds looking for the photographer doesn't mean it's free. It just means you are willing to steal someone else's work and I really don't think you would have much of a defense in court if someone found you using someone 's work without permission.
In the past I posted mostly on Flickr and I have photographs that because of who I photographed, became heavily sought after when two members of the band GWAR died. I did not surrender my rights because I posted them on Flickr without a watermark, the publications simply took them because they could. The same thing happens with major artists all the time, watermark or not.
A friend of mine not too long ago posted a shot on Facebook, the subject of the photo posted it on his page after cropping out the watermark. At the end of the day, watermarks don't mean squat. And I have seen watermarks that comprise 25% of the image, you start to wonder whether it is a photo or an ad for the photographer.
I recognize my work well enough that if I see a photo that looks familiar, it probably is mine. One of my photos used without permission is how I ended up working for the metal music website MetalSucks. They needed a photo of a particular band and I had it and they used it without credit or permission. They aren't the only ones. I don't believe for a second that because someone posts a photo without a watermark, it is fair game for whoever wants to steal it. You might want to ask Diplo about that!!!
Voting down or disagreeing with my comment if fair. However, the reason for being simply wrong is not correct or valid.
In your first paragraph you said, "Just because you (or whoever wants to steal a photo) doesn't want to spend a few seconds looking for the photographer doesn't mean it's free." I never said that. What I did say was if there were no mark, I would have no way to tell who the maker was. So there is no few seconds looking for the photographer. So we have that.
Your second paragraph, is wrong as well. I never said you surrender any rights by not using a mark. I'm not sure why you make this point.
Your 3rd paragraph I only assume you are debating with yourself. I don't know of a single post that said a watermark could not be removed. What I did say and court cases have proved, that removing or hiding a makers mark, favors the makers position.
Then in the last paragraph, there you go again. you said "I recognize my work well enough..." Bless your heart, just because you don't see the image somewhere does not mean it is not being used.
Then you also say, "They aren't the only ones. I don't believe for a second that because someone posts a photo without a watermark, it is fair game for whoever wants to steal it. You might want to ask Diplo about that!!!"
To this I think if you educated yourself, you would not have to make such an incorrect statement.
To help you just a little here is one of many articles found https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-...
Look you can mark or not mark your images, make no difference to me. All I said was 1) without a mark it is impossible to identify the maker of the image and 2) If someone does remove your mark in any manner you have a better case in court as the copyright owner.
Act accordingly.
Lets start here: "One other word of caution. If you do not have your logo on your images, I can use them as free use. My defense would be I had no way of contacting the maker or even tell who the maker was. It was just on the internet as free use.
Social media strips all metadata from images."
Just because Facebook strips EXIF information out of posted images does not mean they are up for grabs, watermark or not. Just as music posted online isn't free (ask Metallica) or software is free (ask Adobe and Microsoft).
People who post images anywhere do not expect them to be stolen and despite best efforts, people still steal them. Just because the image doesn't have a watermark doesn't mean the image(s) were abandoned and the licensing hasn't changed other than Facebook having an exclusive license to your work. Flickr, SmugMug and 500px, your work is yours. If you are stealing them, you are a thief.
In 1983 I viewed an original Ansel Adams print at George Eastman House, now where did he sign the print? On the matte the photo was mounted in. If we are to consider photography art, then we need to present in a way that people will take it as art. A watermark that consumes a significant part of the image reduces the quality of that image.
My work is mostly photojournalism, I shoot metal music and I have been in some unique situations where I shot people who after their deaths photos of them became highly desirable for publication. I had to chase down publications (people who should know better) in order to just get credit. Even with a watermark nobody is taking the time to find out who the photographer, they just take and use. That is the behavior that needs correction.
I get everything you are saying. I'm not now or ever refereed to this as a legal question. It's illegal to drive faster than the speed limit, but most people do it. It's illegal to steal images but 100,000's do it every hour. Combine that with the fact that almost ever photographer would not take legal action to defend their copyright. You even said as much in your post.
So, just like you can drive above the speed limit - Just press the pedal. You can copy an image from the internet - Just right click. These are facts.
Now if I'm stopped for speeding, I could claim that I was headed to the hospital and maybe get off. Likewise, when it comes to digital images, I could claim, the image had no way for me to track the owner, so it appeared the owner did not want to defend his copyright. Then maybe get case dismissed.
On the other hand, if I had just passed the hospital exit two miles back - I'm going to get a ticket. If the image had a mark that I removed in some way, I can't argue that I didn't know who the maker was. Then I might be found guilty.
So this can not be an of if it can be done, it absolutely can be done. Right or wrong, legal or illegal it can and is being done. Again, just a fact.
What happened in 1983 does not matter. Really anything that happened prior to 10 years ago does not matter. In 1983 all images were prints. What we a talking about today are digital assets. A much different thing when it comes to courts.
I've shot a number of bands and performers most recently Justin Moore, Dustin Lynch. It is just not something I do often and don't chase that market. I'm retired Air Force, so all I do is Weddings and HS Seniors. My business partner (Jessica) does all the other types.
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
Yes this is a misconception. I have never seen one of my images stolen from social media and used in a commercial way. I have a lot of commercially viable images out there.
This is not a misconception. Maybe none of your images have been used or maybe they have and you just have not discovered it yet.
In either case, just because it has not happened to you does not mean it has not and will not happen.
This would almost be like saying, I smoke and don't have lung cancer, so that proves lung cancer either does not exist or is not caused by smoking.
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
Scott Choucino wrote: “I have never seen one of my images stolen from social media and used in a commercial way.”
Many Americans have had their creative media misappropriated commercially from social media sites. In the US, most all copyright infringement disputes settle confidentially, via non-disparagement out of court agreements. As a result, the creative community never learns about the full extent of the copyright infringements, the settlement dollar amounts, and often the names of the defendants/infringers.
> If you do not have your logo on your images, I can use them as free use.
That is absolutely wrong. Just because it's on internet and you can't find the original photographer does not mean it's fair game.
Fair use does not come into play here, either.
What I was saying, if the image has no way for someone to identify the maker. They could claim free use or fair use.
I further explain that if it did have a mark and I removed that mark by any means that would be proof that I understood and knew who the maker was. In this case I could not argue in court that I did not know.
I also explained that being able to ID the maker has made a lot of people money. But if that is not for you then just don't do it. It does not matter to me. Have at it.
I gave an example of making 8k because of a small little mark, when 2 brides found us by seeing it on someone's insta and pinterest account. But again, that may not be important to you.
https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-...
> if the image has no way for someone to identify the maker. They could claim free use or fair use.
They'd be wrong, and if caught, the photographer would be within their rights to sue for infringement.
First I'm 110% positive you would not take legal action if that happened to you.
Second, you are correct they could claim fair use or free use as a defense and even if you did take legal action, you may or or may not win.
In my previous posts, I supplied links to people (one person specifically) who made hundred of thousands of dollars selling other makers images. When finally sued by a photographer, the photographer won, only to be overturned on appeal.
The foundation of my position is that using a makers mark has more positives than negatives. There are even some types of photography where a watermark is absolutely required.
I further explained in my position how our mark has got us work from social media after our image was posted and a bride could track us down because they could tell who made the image.
https://kfor.com/2015/05/26/artist-steals-instagram-photos-sells-them-fo...
Once again, you cannot claim fair use in those conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for it to qualify as fair use. Just because an image is online and the original photographer cannot be found does not qualify it as fair use. I urge you to read up on fair use so that you stop passing around bad information.
If finances weren't an issue, I absolutely would pursue copyright infringements. If the new law HR3945 (aka CASE Act) passes, this will allow photographers to pursue infringements in the equivalent of small claims (currently it's only federal).
I am well versed on fair use. You said, "Once again, you cannot claim fair use in those conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for it to qualify as fair use.". The question is not if someone can or can not claim public domain or fair use, they absolutely can and do everyday. You getting confused by the question, if they would win in court and if they did would they be pursued. Two very different things.
I gave you a very specific link about someone who made 90k per image from other peoples work. So explain that.
I was not saying that legally it was fair use. What I said was, without a mark a reviewer COULD make that claim and many have been successful doing just that. However, if you have the mark and the reviewer removes it by any means, then they can no longer make that claim. In fact it shows just the opposite.
Now, the original question and post was, to stop watermarking your images or should we watermark images. It was not about, "is use of any image legal or not", that has just evolved by misunderstanding.
I, like you, would not chase down someone for using my image. In fact, I've had my images used as a magazine cover and in a Nation Distribution Fusion Project (part video and part stills) national music video. Neither of these obtained permission. The images were given by the Bride. I also got no attribution for the images. ** so what difference does it make **.
All this uproar is from people who believe that images should not be marked. I, on the other hand believe there are advantages to marking them. I gave two examples that are very true 1) with a mark there is no question who the maker is and the reviewer can find them and 2) I get bookings from people who see an image, see the mark, contact me and we book the wedding. Without a mark none of that could happen.
Even the original poster of the article commented to me that he misused the definition of watermark in the article. There is a difference between "Watermark" and "Makers Mark"
Jen Photographs wrote: “…the photographer would be within their rights to sue for infringement.
Perhaps. In the US, in order to have legal standing to sue an infringer for copyright infringement, the plaintiff photographer MUST have registered her photo copyright with the US Copyright Office (or at least obtain a copyright registration refusal).
Only a handful of photographers timely register their copyrights.
If the photographer didn’t timely registered her copyright, either BEFORE the copyright infringement started or WITHIN three-months of FIRST-publication, she is NOT eligible to pursue statutory money damages, and most importantly, the ability to pursue her attorney fees and legal costs against the defendant infringer.
Without a timely registered copyright, plaintiff photographers can only pursue actual damages (typically what they would have licensed the work had the infringer obtained a license, usually low fees) and the disgorgement of profits, if any(!).
In short, the cost to enforce your copyrights in court without a timely registered copyright will very likely be out-stripped by your attorney fees and legal costs, making it economically unfeasible to pursue infringers in court or via out of court settlements.
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
No you can't. The photographer has copyright of the image and no one can just use it freely to do what they want with it.
I watermark my images because i am proud of my work and want people to know who created it. Can it be removed? Yes it can.
The moment an image is taken it becomes my property and i alone get to decide how its used unless you agree otherwise with a client.
When people stop disrespecting my work and think it is free then I will stop watermarking it.
Thank you for your comments. But you somewhat misunderstood what was being said.
We use our mark (different from watermark) in bottom left or right on our images. We do that because it helps gets us jobs. A bride sees our image on social and calls us because they know who made the image. Without any mark they would have no idea who made the image.
I don't think anyone disputes that the photographer owns the copyright when the image is taken in 98% of the cases.
My position was just, without any marks there is no way for a reviewer to know or find out who the maker was. So the reviewer could offer as their defense, there was no way to identify this lost work and therefore used it under fair use law.
On the other hand, if there were a mark and the reviewer deliberately removed it by an means, then they would not have this same defense because they knew it was copyrighted, they knew who the maker was and knew the maker wanted to retain his/her copyright.
Now we can say, the moment I take an image it becomes my property, all we want. But the moment you place that image on the internet, right or wrong, someone can take that image, re-post it, share it or use it. Even if it violates your copyright, you would not take legal action.
I wanted to put this link right at the top, just in case you don’t get to the bottom of the post.
https://www.photoattorney.com/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears/
Argument/position on why you may want to watermark your images. From here forward the term watermark will mean a logo or makers mark placed discreetly in lower part of image.
1 – Social media, regardless of if we personally like it or hate it is the venue for our marketing. We could expand that to include things like blogs and website galleries. We must all agree with this. Plus, the very importance of our images. Otherwise, there would be no need to have a website for your photography.
2 – One method of web search that has been increasing in the past few years, is image search. If that is true, then the importance of the knowing who made the image is critical. A watermark does that in just a glance.
3- Displaying your brand name on every image, some visitors may ask for permission to use your images. You may say, “Yes but some may not”. If that is your position, then you do not need to read this.
4 – If the image is shared by a visitor on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest or Instagram. Your logo goes with it. From that share you could be hired or get a commission for permission to use.
5 – If someone removes your watermark, then the individual potentially faces stiffer legal penalties when your images are copyrighted.
When your watermark is removed by someone who has “reasonable ground to know, that [the removal] will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement” they have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) per 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
So, can an individual seal your work and claim free or fair use? Sure. It will just be harder for them to defend their position in a court of law.
So why don't the stock photo agencies take your advice? Getty Images, Alamy, Shutterstock? What do they know?
The same photo could be registered across multiple stock houses, it's in their interest to protect their client and make it obvious which company is seeking the image.
Its due to the way that clients have credit with them and how easy it is in manor reproduction houses to accidentally use too many credits without being able to keep count.
I think in your commercial world, you're absolutely right, that a watermark or even a 'maker's mark' detracts from the work, and has no benefit. Perhaps for the wedding photographers and other social-media photographers, there may be a benefit, provided it's clear, in the corner, and doesn't cover anything of value. In short, the value is there for showing who made the work, but not for preventing theft. Those people who splash it directly across the centre of the image almost always ruin it, and the only time I can justify it is for things like school photos or sports photos, where the products are typicallly prints of the photo itself.
Yes I absolutely agree that it could help with branding if done well. But I also think that if you are good enough at your craft that everyone will know it is your work. There are wedding photographers out there who's work is unmistakably theirs and a watermark would only cheapen them to look like all of the others who have a very similar and undefined style of work.
'...My work is passed off as another photographer's work all the time. Companies in China use it for adverts and it pops up on blogs all over the place. I simply do not care. The energy expended in getting angry about this sort of thing is not at all productive. It is far better to put that energy into creating something new...'
Absolutely. Well said.
All about that stress free life. haha
While i agree to the most things you are saying watermarks can help a potential client find you as a photographer. Not all will be using google image search. This probably doesnt matter for the photographer with the established client base but for new starters every client counts and can potentially be a life changer.
I made this change a few years back as well, I had noticed people like Joey L not watermarking the work, but I was and I started to question myself. I removed all watermarks and haven't looked back.
I watermark my photos. I won't be stopping.
Money quote: "Chances are, when you start out in photography, you are around people who are also starting out or who are a little better. You probably won't be hanging out with Annie Leibowitz. Because of this, the advice you receive is likely to be poor..."
Oh, so true.
One thing to think about, though, is that I think it's possible to use a WM tastefully in a positive way. For example a small transparent WM of, say your website. Put it on a bottom edge and make it small and mostly transparent. It's not there to mar the image and to "keep people from stealing it." It's there so that if someone likes it, they know who took it. I think there could be some benefit to that. But I seldom even do that anymore.
Since every newcomer who spent more than a grant on camera gear feels the need to go all "professional" and watermarks the s**t out of his images, I have come to associate watermarks with crappy photography. No matter how good an image is, a watermark makes me think less of it on a subconscious level.
I agree to a large degree, if it is a watermark you are talking about.
However, I'll give you an example where even a watermark is needed. HS Sports photography.
Almost 100% of this type photography is sold online as print or digital downloads. If the potential client could download the image free of watermark there would be no need to purchase. That is 100% fact. I do not do this type photography any longer.
if you are talking about a makers mark or logo. Then I don't think that has a negative impact. In fact, I have demonstrated a few examples in previous post to show that mark could create income.
I associate non-watermarked images with theft.
Yeah never liked them either. Sometimes I used then completely stopped using them.
Makes the image look dirty and cheap!
I've been reading all the fascinating posts with interest. I watermark and will continue to to so, because it ID's your work. Period. But mine doesn't jump out - it's in 18pt at the bottom right of the screen, and I adjust the opacity so that's it's there, and its subtle, just not in an obscene way.
If someone steals the image and crops out my nom de plume, so be it. I have already caught one local paper that did just that, and as Scott Choucino wrote, I've sent them an invoice. Canadian copyright laws are tough, and if this paper doesn't pay, they will be facing me in small claims court. Here in Montreal, you can claim up to $15k in small claims, so it's certainly worth my time if the damage is significant!
As to not garnering work, or affecting how clients view you, it has not affected me at all. In fact, as Bill Wells succinctly pointed out, if you have your name or mark on the image, you can be found, especially if the image is screen saved or reposted on social media, like Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest and so on.
By way of reference, in the past two months, I had a television station contact me for use of an image they found on IG, a publisher just picked an image for a photo book coming out soon, and Huffington Post used four of my images, found on Twitter, for a report on wild weather.
In Quebec we have a saying, chacun son goût - each to their own taste!
Be well everyone!
Cheers,
Frederic in Montreal
https://www.instagram.com/frederic_hore
"A watermark is the sign of an amateur" I don't like these kinds of comments, because they sound so elitist. If you need to judge a photographer's skill based on their personal choice rather than the merits of the photograph, may I ask who the real amateur is? It's a personal choice and I don't think anyone should be pressured into watermarking or not. Its not going to make you a better photographer either way. I almost always do watermark and include my URL, I've received traffic to my properties and work because of it. I don't slap a huge WM across the photo, but I do it small and tasteful in the corner. Once again, this is my personal choice and I don't care if other people do or don't, but I do.
thieves can steal your photos easily even with a watermark placed in an entire photo using the content aware fill .
Just a test will edit @bwellsphoto
As I understand, the author of this article, Scott Choucino, is out of the UK. My comments are based on US law and personal observations.
By awarding enhanced statutory money damages, US copyright statue encourages American and international creatives to timely register their copyrights with the US Copyright Office and affix their posted media with “watermarks” for the following legal reasons:
1) Orphan Works (i.e. unable to track down the owner of the photograph): Including one or more watermarks, logos, metadata, image title, image caption, licensing information, copyright attribution, and other “Copyright Management Information” (CMI--part of the DMCA) helps keep photographs from being “orphaned” and better able to find their rights owner, especially if a photograph is not showing up via reverse Internet image search. Though Orphan Works legislation has yet to be come US law, when passed, it would likely permit licensees who are unable to locate the author of a photograph, and after performing a diligent search at the US Copyright Office and elsewhere, be permitted to exploit the orphan work photograph in a limited capacity, all WITHOUT the photographer’s authorization.
2) If you affix CMI to your posted photographs, a US infringer can NOT argue that his/her infringing use was made by accident, aka “innocent infringement”. However, if the infringer “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright [no copyright notice, no metadata, no licensing information, etc.], the court, at its discretion, may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.” See 17 USC 504(c)(2).
3) Parties who knowingly remove, change, or cover up CMI to hide a copyright infringement or to further induce infringements can be financially liable from US$2,500 to US$25,000 PLUS the photographer’s attorney fees, legal costs, and other remedies (at the court’s discretion). A timely registered copyright is NOT required to pursue CMI violations. See 17 USC §§ 1202-1203 (Integrity of Copyright Management Information & Civil Remedies).
Two particular US cases dealt with CMI removal: Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press; see http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-you....
There have also been numerous actions against celebrities, including Jessica Simpson, who have removed CMI and shared those unlicensed images with their one million+ social media followers.
My practice is to timely register all my photographs, include robust CMI, and affix an extended image caption directly on to my posted photographs (image + short story). As well, affixing CMI helps discourage infringements and protects people featured in my assignment and stock photographs from being exploited without a release (along with potential misappropriation of their publicity/privacy rights).
Visiting Scott Choucino’s website (BTW, wonderfully styled + beautifully photographed culinary dishes!), I see that his photographs are titled with his URL + photo image number: www.scottchoucino.com-3.jpg. This is CMI! And if Scott owns the rights to these images, he could pursue US-based violators who knowingly remove his CMI to exploit his unlicensed images on their blogs, editorial, and commercial media.
US and international photographers who choose NOT to timely register their photographs with the US Copyright Office should, at the very least, affix CMI to their creative media to retain some legal options against (willful) infringers located in the US. I’m seeing more and more US copyright litigators pursue CMI violations.
Hi Scott,
I really enjoyed reading your article. I think you would also agree with Andy Day who wrote it was useless to waste time with metadata since they are stripped off the image as well as watermarks. (https://fstoppers.com/business/adding-metadata-your-images-waste-time-25...).
"Let Them Steal Your Work, but Do Invoice"
You are right (actually, you have no choice!), and you probably use a tracking tool to be aware of who uses your images. Do you spend time on investigating who you should send your invoice to? Does it pay?
Have you tried www.IMATAG.com ? We are improving our system to ease photographers' investigations and sort out which infringers are worth suing.
Have a try ! (or read this https://fstoppers.com/review/auto-detect-copyright-infringements-putting...)
Hey,
Thanks for reading.
I don't actually bother checking. People will always wrong do you. I am sure I could find at least 10K of theft online and spend a month of my time and negative energy. With the same time and far less stress I can make more money shooting for new clients or creating something positive.
If I see my image on a POS or billboard when out and about, I will invoice the company for the full fee + license + admin fee.