About pics on web, advertisment/protection

MickeK

MickeK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Name
Michael Källman
Edit My Images
No
Would like to hear opinions around originals presented in galleries on the web.

Any concerns around 'protection' or do you put it out as optimized possible and in a fat big size (like 1600px hor) just to maximise the impact?
Or do you hold the size down a bit or even put watermarks in the pics? Like show an 'apertizer' of the pic.

I'm planning a couple of galleries and have to decide a standard procedure.
What are your preferences when it comes to this?
 
It's arbitrary, the word's your oyster.

It might not matter for cheap stock images, but if you care about your images in a cultural way, plastering a watermark over them is rather naff & has the ring of commerce (&/or egotism) about it.

Most images especially at internet sizes (mine are 1200px) probably have little commercial value, so it's a matter of proportion whether you should feel that protection is needed. In another way, it depends on the product. In my case the product is usually A3 etc prints, which require files far larger than what I post on-line.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear that your conclusions is very close to how I guessed. The 'destroying' watermark thing seems to odd (and destroy the motive as well), on the other hand what about a descrete mail or URL visible in a descreet way? As a photographer signature for what it's Worth if someone decisdes to download. Is it common?
 
I put mine out on my website without watermarks in most cases. There must be so many free photographs out there now that the chances of any one individuals work getting pinched must be quite low.

However one of these days i'm going to search for unauthorised users of my pics and see what i find.
 
MickeK said:
what about a descrete mail or URL
Click to expand...
It's up to you! But I think that if you can be clear about where your market lies, you can then tailor your presentation to suit. You might want to be an artist, or you might want to be a one-person Alamy ... or something completely different again.
 
jerry12953 said:
I put mine out on my website without watermarks in most cases. There must be so many free photographs out there now that the chances of any one individuals work getting pinched must be quite low.

However one of these days i'm going to search for unauthorised users of my pics and see what i find.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm ok with people liking a pic and download it (even if it would be nice if they could expose the photographers name as well) but if somenone just steal it and use it as some kind of stock photo I would protest. As I understand it some of the social media platforms include 'agreements' (in all the text you don't read) around the usage of pics founf on platforms. I really don't know but heard about it. But if your pics are on your official site with remarks of copyright I guess the stealing is more obvious.
 
MickeK said:
But if your pics are on your official site with remarks of copyright I guess the stealing is more obvious.
Click to expand...
You'd have to put the legwork in to track the stolen images down, though, and ask the thieves to desist (&/or invoice them) ... it also might relate to your state of mind (or quality of life) and how you want to spend your time. And of course, I generalise. You haven't been specific about the character of your images or their possible marketplaces.
 
MickeK said:
Would like to hear opinions around originals presented in galleries on the web.

Any concerns around 'protection' or do you put it out as optimized possible and in a fat big size (like 1600px hor) just to maximise the impact?
Or do you hold the size down a bit or even put watermarks in the pics? Like show an 'apertizer' of the pic.

I'm planning a couple of galleries and have to decide a standard procedure.
What are your preferences when it comes to this?
Click to expand...

A lot depends on whether you are selling these images for income?
 
Just thinking about unlicensed internet borrowing (aka theft), & recalling an instance where a whole paragraph of what I'd written for a community website was cut and pasted into his material by some cheap s*** who ran a website for profit.

I was younger then, with more of the Jack Russell about my demeanor than there is now, but even so I dwelt on the matter for a short while and decided to let things rest. Why? So as not to waste my time on negativity (& dealing with a cheap s*** who would be called to account anyway at the pearly gates eventually).
 
Due to all of the difficulties/realities of protecting work online, I put mine up with a limited CC license (no commercial, no derivatives, attribution). I feel it at least creates a generous/friendly atmosphere. And I still get the occasional inquiry for a use that the CC license doesn't cover; so I don't think it really hurts anything.

I also put a small watermark in the corner "© S Kersting" (technically the © is incorrect/not required). I do this because in the US where I live removing that watermark is a violation of the DMCA 1998 and carries significant penalties/fines on it's own. And it also eliminates any possible claim of innocent infringement of copyrights.
In the EU/UK I would think it would relate to a moral rights violation, eliminate an innocent infringement claim, and also help prevent the image from being considered an orphaned work at some point.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Most images especially at internet sizes (mine are 1200px) probably have little commercial value
Click to expand...

I respectfully completely disagree. 1200px and in fact a lot smaller will be all that is needed for any web ads, web design, media, blogs and social posting, and possibly even greeting cards.

My content is probably some of the most pirated here around the net. And that's OK. The more the better. Lawyers come and collect fees from pirates sooner or later.
 
To watermark or not to watermark..

The answer is in the value you put on the picture...

I have nearly half a million pics on my website and I make a living selling them... So I put a massive big ugly watermark on my pictures.. If people want it without the watermark then they have to pay....simple as that... To protect someone taking....A discreet or corner watermark is useless.. a Nice watermark is useless..

If you just want people to know you took it and you don't care if its copied then anything will do :)

PS a 1200 pixel wide pic will print very nice as 6x4 or even 7x5 so no point using size as a protection :)
 
KIPAX said:
PS a 1200 pixel wide pic will print very nice as 6x4 or even 7x5 so no point using size as a protection
Click to expand...

Of course it won't print on A3 or larger so at least for indoor display this is ruled out. Google images and other tools can't yet discover such use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top