Why watermark??

[Norwegianlatvian]

Just a general question about photo editing - Why do people choose to destroy their photos with watermarks on their photos? It is really annoying, and very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

[Kamloops50]

Just a general question about photo editing - Why do people choose to destroy their photos with watermarks on their photos? It is really annoying, and very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

 

For copyright issues

[Norwegianlatvian]

For copyright issues

 

It it good that certain people believe that much in their own photo skills...:)

[chipmaster]

Many people who sell their photos for a living need to protect their livelyhood. The photographers would like everyone to see their work and be enticed to buy, without watermark many would just do screen capture save to their laptop

 

I don't watermark, but again I do my photography more as a hobby and hope to make few dollars on the side to pay for the website. For others it is their living, so I think if you want the picture, buy it.

 

Just a general question about photo editing - Why do people choose to destroy their photos with watermarks on their photos? It is really annoying, and very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

[markeb]

I don't post a lot of photos on Cruise Critic, and rarely watermark them.

 

I do post a lot of photos on some other hobby sites, and watermark most of them, for a fairly simple reason: I don't want someone trying to "sell" one of my watches or pens! Unfortunately, not an infrequent occurrence in the internet era...

[Norwegianlatvian]

My point is that it is really ugly, and it destroys the photo. And again, most serious web resources (online newspapers etc) tries to contact the owner of a photo before using it.

 

Most of hobby photographers should be flattered if someone actually uses our photos. During the last years I think I only sold around 3 pictures - but again, I am a poorly trained amateur photographer.

[constable145]

My point is that it is really ugly, and it destroys the photo. And again, most serious web resources (online newspapers etc) tries to contact the owner of a photo before using it.

 

Most of hobby photographers should be flattered if someone actually uses our photos. During the last years I think I only sold around 3 pictures - but again, I am a poorly trained amateur photographer.

 

 

If someone wants the unwater marked original, it can be arranged. watermarking makes sense.

[mytank]

The watermarks are suppose to be annoying and in a place that if cropping it out of an image it makes the image not desirable.

 

Unfortunately there are people out there who take others images and claim they took them and use them in their websites for sale or for advertising. Newspapers/websites don't always give credit where credit is due either. There are also people who pay for photo-shoots but don't want to pay the price of prints or high res digi files will go copy the images from photographers websites as well.

 

Photographers are trying to protect their livelihood. And watermarks are also a way of advertising as well.

 

 

Kari

[awboater]

again, most serious web resources (online newspapers etc) tries to contact the owner of a photo before using it.

 

Perhaps in a few cases, but I doubt that happens in most circumstances. With the worldwide exposure of the internet, and various laws of different countries, there are plenty of examples of intellectual theft, including photos.

 

A little cropping or mirroring (flipping) the photo to make the image look a bit different, or any other techniques to slightly change the photo can make it difficult to prove theft... and to sue, you may have to do so in international court (if the country of where the thievery takes place even recognizes intellectual theft), or other factors that may not make recovery cost-effective.

 

And it is very unlikely that the photograph would retain the original photographer's identity should it be stolen - so the idea of "free advertising" is not likely going to happen.

 

Photographers watermark their work as it is a copyright, no different than a book or any other media.

 

Typically though, as indicated above, a watermark is more or less a "proof" to entice you to buy the higher quality real thing.

[zackiedawg]

My point is that it is really ugly, and it destroys the photo. And again, most serious web resources (online newspapers etc) tries to contact the owner of a photo before using it.

 

Most of hobby photographers should be flattered if someone actually uses our photos. During the last years I think I only sold around 3 pictures - but again, I am a poorly trained amateur photographer.

 

While I do sell and publish photos, I choose not to watermark, mostly because like you I find them very distracting and unattractive. But I do understand why others do - theft online is much more rampant than you think - many times it's not for profit and often inoffensive...but occasionally it's for profit too.

 

While you're correct that most reputable publishers and photo procurement companies, as well as news outlets or stock photo sites, would always contact you first before trying to use a photo of yours...the problem is when you post a full resolution photo, someone else copies that photo to their computer, posts it on THEIR gallery and claims it as their own, then starts sending it out to stock photo sites or posting often to get more attention and the buyer ends up contacting them to buy the photo instead of you. You'll likely never be aware of the crime, since the photo is stolen covertly and sold directly and you're never involved.

 

Even those who consider themselves 'unskilled' or 'amateur' photographers who never considered that such things can happen might be surprised to find how often it does - and might be shocked to discover some of their own photos have been living other lives out there on the web. Again, most is not for a profit, so it's just the offense of someone else using your photo without permission, and possibly portraying it not only as their own, but also changing the meaning or intent of the photo in how it's used. I have over the years found my photos in 12 other people's galleries - simply being claimed as photos they took themselves. I've had 4 of my photos used as Facebook profile photos by people who wanted a photo of someone else to disguise who they really are. I've had 6 of my photos sold to a minor website - fortunately only for $1 a piece, and no high profit...and the site was good enough to send me the same money once I proved they were mine. And God knows where else my photos may have ended up.

 

Fortunately, I take a different precaution - rather than watermark, I just post small res versions of all my photos - rarely exceeding 1024x pixels on the longest end. That way, the most that can be done with them by someone else is posting or adding to their gallery or online site and claiming them as their own - they can't make any profit off them since all publications and stock agencies require much higher res to purchase, and only I have those originals. Using image-match search tools, I occasionally scan around the web and look for some of my more popular photos to see if anyone's 'borrowed' them - sometimes I'll just e-mail them and ask friendly-like that they take them down...other times I may post on the site to notify of the theft...or contact the site admin to have them taken down. Other times, I simply left it alone - the use was inoffensive and does me no damage, so I don't take any action.

 

Watermarking allows you to post large res photos and maintain at least some measure of protection against someone else stealing your full res photo and selling it or printing it large and claiming it as their own. It's not foolproof, but it helps. I choose the other route because of how much I dislike the watermark look - keep the online posting size down to reasonable display levels, and if someone's interested in purchase, they contact you to get the full res originals. It's worked very well for me.

[Marinerbaby]

I always watermark my images unless they are being used commercially (rights have been purchased) or are being submitted for particular contests that do not allow it. I work hard at what I do and there are too many people including "reputable" companies that do take images for use without the proper approval. Yes, I realize that the watermark can be cropped out or "photoshopped" but then there can be no excuse as to "accidental image usage" and I do not hesitate to get my lawyer involved. That may sound extreme but this is my job and livelihood. :)

 

It it good that certain people believe that much in their own photo skills...

 

Yes, otherwise I would not be in this profession. I have been a professional photographer for many years now.

[donaldsc]

Just a general question about photo editing - Why do people choose to destroy their photos with watermarks on their photos? It is really annoying, and very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

 

Check out the serious photo sites and you will find that photos are stolen all the time. Watermarking does not make it impossible to do this but it makes it a bit more difficult.

 

DON

[Maligator]

Anyone who has had a photo used without permission or credit (and cares) will watermark. While I'm not a professional and rarely ask for anything more than credit, I'm not in the business of helping someone else make money through my efforts.

[pilotdane]

I will be the first to admit that I am only one step above a snapshot hack in photography but some of my photos have been copied and used without permission on the web. Nothing fancy. I like taking ship photos and they get "copied" and used on other sites. No money involved but it just pisses me off. I give anyone who asks permission and full size files but there are some that just copy and claim as their own. So, I don't post anything "good" on the web. All photos are at reduced resolution, de-sharpened and have a somewhat large watermark. It's nothing that the average person would notice I hate it because there are many that I want to see the full quality photos but... In the end anyone that wants a photo at full quality without a watermark just has to ask.

 

---

Oddly, I had taken some macro photos of tiny weeds growing in my pond like duckweed & watermeal. Literally pond scum. I was bored one day and did some stuff to get clear shots of the plants and their root structure. I can't even remember where I originally posted them but a couple universities ended up contacting me via the exif data to include in some research. It was really nice to know that someone was getting benefit from my bored afternoon's project.

[ScubaCruiser54]

Watermarking is good if you want to protect your intellectual property rights to your photographs.

 

While I am not a professional photographer, I have taken some very "professional" photographs over the years. Imagine your surprise when you later see several of your photographs in print. No attempts to contact me, no attempt to verify the owner of the photographs. The alleged "photographer" pulled them from a website (I did not watermark them and did not use smaller resolution) that I had put them up on to share with friends and family. My mistake, their dishonesty.

 

What will make a lot of people wonder, before you post any of your photos on social media sites and others, read their photograph policies. A lot claim that if you post on their sites, they have the rights to use your photographs for any purpose that they may want, including selling them.

 

I also had three of my photos used on a minor league hockey teams trading cards. When they found out that I owned the rights, they did ask, but the cat was already out of the bag. I told them not to worry.

[Norwegianlatvian]

I get all these arguments. Of course I do.

 

Hopefully the users here at CC can use small watermarks. Please dont destroy the viewers experience of the photos..

[R. Wethereyet]

I get all these arguments. Of course I do.

 

Hopefully the users here at CC can use small watermarks. Please dont destroy the viewers experience of the photos..

----------------------------------------

 

I mess around with photos on am amateur basis. I have found my shots on websites of realtors, government sponsored community sites and others. Iam flattered, but would also like to get some recognition for my efforts. I have moved toward uploading low res photos, and am still working on an appropriately sized watermark. If you browse through my flickr pages you will notice a few variations of watermarks. I am trying to balance a discreet, professional and readable design. I agree that many vitually ruin an image! I have seen some pasted across the centre of an image in opaque, 36 pt font - pretty tacky. :eek:

[zackiedawg]

Preserving the viewer experience is precisely why I decided to go with smaller photos, but at maximum quality and without watermarks. It lets me protect my work professionally for the most part, at least from the most costly or damaging theft, while still hopefully allowing the viewers to enjoy the scene. At 1024 pixels it should be big enough to enjoy the scene and fill tablets, most notebooks, and at least 1/2 the screen of most desktops with high res screens - the only ones who may not enjoy it as much are those with super-high resolution settings on big 24"+ screens. But it works for the vast majority.

 

There's no pleasing everyone AND completely protecting your photos from theft- no watermarks means keeping size down or risking theft, small watermarks that are discreet mean risking someone simply cropping it out or cloning over it, and big watermarks mean an ugly viewing experience. Pick your poison!

[Lard Greystoke]

very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

 

I think very few online newspapers or web sources are serious to begin with.

 

If you google any of a number of obscure subjects you will find that of six descriptions, five are plagiarized from Wikipedia or each other. They aren't subjects that are going to win a Nobel prize or earn a dime. My only explanation is that the internet serves as a vehicle to serve Pride, which is the most deadly of the deadly sins. Any excuse to say "look at me".

 

Apart from profit (=Avarice), I suspect this is why people steal pictures and claim them as their own - that and Sloth.

 

(Speaking of deadly sins, Lust is also pretty well covered on the Web).

[Emperor Norton]

Just a general question about photo editing - Why do people choose to destroy their photos with watermarks on their photos? It is really annoying, and very few serious online newspapers or other serious web sources would dare to use/steal a photo without permission anyway.

 

Because of cruise critic. When I first joined it wasn't uncommon for several reviews to magically all have the same pictures. People here were "borrowing" others images for their reviews and then not giving credit to the original photog. While most reputable places do try to find and credit the source that doesn't always happen (especially when they're blindly using GIS for filler). As to whether a serious website would "steal" a copyrighted image, look no further than Buzzfeed.