Copyrighting images

gilbouk

gilbouk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,527
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
With my latest images, I'm thinking that they are getting good enough perhaps to want to protect them from being used without some pennies coming my way!! I'm really just a hobbyist, but from the expense of photography etc it would be good to know that my better pictures are protected and that if there is any desire for them, that they are not used by others to gain money when I should be the one who gets the compensation for ultimately taking the picture and processing!!

Wanted to ask what you guys do to protect your images. I've heard of settings in Lightroom / Photoshop and watermarks. Should your watermark include the copyright symbol, and how big do you like your watermark to be, where should it be located? Cheers in advance
 
When you took them, you took ownership of the copyright.

If you post them on the internet, you can’t stop people using them.

All you can do is either not post them, or be vigilant about chasing down people for payment. But if those people are abroad, it’s anything from very difficult to impossible to extract money.

Watermarks make no difference to the above. But you can pay for a service that chases your payments if you feel it’s worth it.

You can add copyright, contact and payment terms to the exit data, and that’s a good start.
 
Just to add more succinctly.

Putting a watermark on your pictures doesn’t increase the value of them, or make them more attractive, it does the opposite. And if you want to make money from photography, you need to put effort into doing just that, putting effort into photography and thinking making money will follow automatically is plain daft. Like having a kick about with your mates in the park and being surprised that the public don’t spontaneously turn up to watch and pass a cap round to pay you.
 
Phil V said:
Putting a watermark on your pictures doesn’t increase the value of them...
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite really. If an infringer removes your 'watermark'/branding logo from an image that can add an uplift to damages of between x2 and x6 depending on how blatent the removal was and how much effort has been put into it.
 
DemiLion said:
Quite the opposite really. If an infringer removes your 'watermark'/branding logo from an image that can add an uplift to damages of between x2 and x6 depending on how blatent the removal was and how much effort has been put into it.
Click to expand...
That’s not an increase in ‘the value’ of the image, but an increase in the potential compensation for breach of copyright
 
Phil V said:
Just to add more succinctly.

Putting a watermark on your pictures doesn’t increase the value of them, or make them more attractive, it does the opposite. And if you want to make money from photography, you need to put effort into doing just that, putting effort into photography and thinking making money will follow automatically is plain daft. Like having a kick about with your mates in the park and being surprised that the public don’t spontaneously turn up to watch and pass a cap round to pay you.
Click to expand...

Not accurate. Actions by a copyright infringer that may be determined to be "flagrant", can result in increased damages if you claim for them and put the case correctly. Flagrancy can be used for other situations as well, like for example if they asked if they could use the pictures, you said for £x price, and instead of paying they simply lifted them from your website, of if they lied about the number of copies of a book that the image would be used in etc when negotiating a license. The other advantage of having a watermark is that it makes it more difficult for images to fall into one of the "orphan works" schemes that were set up a few years back.
 
Personally, as a hobbyist, I don't watermark my images however I do ensure that I don't generally upload hi-res images.
I also do complete the copyright file information via the camera's menu to embed into each file.
I don't over-estimate the commercial value of my images either which helps me not to be overly concerned. :)
 
Gil, I think it is a mistake to focus on protecting your images on the internet. If I had done that I would probably have sold very little. Yes, people do republish my photos as their own, but I just ignore it or point it out to them and they will then add a by line. I now make a moderate living out of photography and I get to travel to some amazing places, all based on internet sales. That wouldn't have happened if I had worried much about copyright. I live in Australia and almost all of my sales are in other countries. In my experience, all those who can pay, do pay. No major magazine or film makers in Europe, Nth America, etc will steal your images. They will ask to use your images and will pay if they do. I never use watermarks and I post high res images. How can people see how good they are if I don't? Anyway, why do we take photos? For people to see them, and the more people that see them the better.

To give you an example, my first big break came when an American blog site called Thisiscolossal asked it they could do a blog on my fungi photography. No money involved and they usually want non-watermarked images. I said "Sure, why not", expecting nothing, but was surprised when suddenly magazines from across Europe wanted to do articles using my fungi photographs. Then the BBC were searching for luminous fungi and lots of my pictures came up in their internet searches (generally reposts from my site) and that led to being included in Planet Earth 2. None of this would have happened had I focused on protecting my images.
 
Last edited:
Bollygum said:
Gil, I think it is a mistake to focus on protecting your images on the internet.
Click to expand...


I am so glad you started with "i think"

what works for one doesnt work for another.. If I didn't put a great big watermark on my pictures i would lose money.... it all depends what the pictures are and who they are aimed at..there isnt one answer for everyone..
 
KIPAX said:
I am so glad you started with "i think"

what works for one doesnt work for another.. If I didn't put a great big watermark on my pictures i would lose money.... it all depends what the pictures are and who they are aimed at..there isnt one answer for everyone..
Click to expand...
True enough, but how are you so sure you would lose money?
 
There really is no way to ensure that no copyright infringement will occur without paying for a system such as Digimark. The best that most can do is to embed your copyright info in the metadata, but like a copyright notice on the image it is easy to remove.

There is a lot of talk here about 'watermarking' your image, there are effective ways to do this if you really are worried about theft (I won't go into that now). For the most part when people 'watermark' an image they are telling their audience "I took this". I am often amused at how many dislike the idea and dismiss it as one of the worst things ever. Do we say that a water colour/oil artists signature detracts from their painting? I have gone through various watermarks as advertising but all my images now go to clients with a discrete signature on them very similar to an artists signature.

Of course as some have pointed out in certain circumstances it needs to be clear that your clients are looking at a 'proof' version and that they can order a 'final' version from you in which case a prominent mark works to prevent incorrect use and possibly to drive sales.

At the end of the day I have no problem with an artist signing their work or a photographer doing so, as long as it is discrete, I also have no problem with sales driven marking of images...
 
Bollygum said:
True enough, but how are you so sure you would lose money?
Click to expand...


100% sure .. would be poitnless me doign that side of my business if I didn't put a dirty great horrible watermark on my pictures .. but then my customers are not magazines or media.. I sell a LOT of pictures from my website but would eb pushed to sell them if not watermarked..
 
KIPAX said:
100% sure .. would be poitnless me doign that side of my business if I didn't put a dirty great horrible watermark on my pictures .. but then my customers are not magazines or media.. I sell a LOT of pictures from my website but would be pushed to sell them if not watermarked..
Click to expand...
Fair enough, your customers may be less honourable than mine . I will say that film stuff is different. Customers would never steal clips, but they do like first use or exclusive use. They don't like to see your clips on Youtube or Facebook. That can present a problem in how do you advertise when you can't show your stuff openly?
 
I'm sure we do. I live in the bush with mostly trees and birds and animals for company. I used to live in big cities, but not any more. I don't miss them.
 
First, ensure you have all your contact information set in your exif info in your camera so it automatically loads it into the image
I use Lightroom to put a watermark bottom right of my images. It doesn't detract from the image but is there
I only put images online that are 800x600 resolution

It's not going to stop anyone, but it helps
 
Bollygum said:
In my experience, all those who can pay, do pay. No major magazine or film makers in Europe, Nth America, etc will steal your images. They will ask to use your images and will pay if they do.
Click to expand...

I regret to say it but those comments come from cloud cuckooland. Publishers can and will infringe copyright all the time.
 
I think I've sold to the Daily Mail,. I had no problems.
 
Bollygum said:
I think I've sold to the Daily Mail,. I had no problems.
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t mean the Daily Mail always do the right thing ;)

Try the google search suggested, there’s plenty of examples. And that’s just one newspaper (tbf probably the worst offender though)
 
Last edited:
And just because in happens sometimes doesn't mean that it is the norm. You have to balance what it costs you to eliminate potential theft with what the potential theft may cost.
 
Bollygum said:
And just because in happens sometimes doesn't mean that it is the norm. You have to balance what it costs you to eliminate potential theft with what the potential theft may cost.
Click to expand...
But it is a ‘regular’ occurrence.
 
I repeat, this is not my experience. Most of the copyright infringement cases seem to be for online publications and they don't pay a lot even when they do pay, but print media do. I have sold to NatGeo, Geo, Roots, China National Geography and the BBC to name just a few (and the Daily Mail Online). I have never had the slightest fear that they would try to rip me off. Maybe I'm lucky, but if someone were to use a photo of mine instead of paying $50 I would probably ignore it (the big magazines might pay 2000 Euros for the pics in an article). Call me stupid, but I really do think you need to balance the cost of protecting your images against the potential gains. Some people enjoy the fight. I enjoy taking photos and I do sell a lot. All of them have been when people approached my and made me an offer. I don't think I would have sold very much if I had focused on protecting my images. That would have been a very significant cost to me.
 
It may not be your experience but that's probably because you're sitting in the Outback.

I'm sitting in London and I work in the editorial industry.

Infringement by publications is a regular occurrence, whether online or in print.
 
DemiLion said:
It may not be your experience but that's probably because you're sitting in the Outback.

I'm sitting in London and I work in the editorial industry.

Infringement by publications is a regular occurrence, whether online or in print.
Click to expand...

It is in the North of England as well.
 
But nobody where I live buys my photos. That is all from London or New York or Beijing. If you sell photos of kids sporting events or product photography, then you probably need to protect your photos. In my case I do not. You may think I live in LaLa Land, but it is very real and the money is very real too.
I never expected to sell photos, though like many, my friends said "why don't you do photography professionally?" I decided about 8 years ago that I would take photos of what I liked rather than try to please others, and I would just show them to whoever wanted to see them. Thisiscolossal wanted to use my photos for no payment and had I been protective I probably would have said "No, I want payment". That would have meant that I would have missed all of those magazines.

I have been to China 3 times, Moscow Once and I'm going to India this year. All paid for by people who want me to help them with fungi photography in the field. I doubt that I would have had those opportunities had I tried to hide my images.

My main source of income is now films, which again I would probably have missed had I not been open with my photos.

Each to their own, but boy, am I glad I live in cloud cuckoo land and not the place you guys occupy. I get to photograph what I like and I get paid for it, but then I'm retired and I don't need to work if I don't want to. People just keep finding my stuff and then want to pay for it. If I don't put it out extensively on the web, then how are people going to find it? I even find my photos on Wikipedia as they often have a Creative Commons licence, but that doesn't stop people buying high res versions for print.
 
A question for the poster, Gil. What do you like photographing the most and what are your best photos of? Are they of the local bands or the local birds?
 
There are a lot of myths and fantasies in this thread. First off I’m a wildlife hobbyist ,I have sold a few photos via Flickr ,and also allowed publication of a few shots in exchange for magazine or book copies there featured in .
For the last five years or so I have copyrighted every image. A couple of years ago I was put on to pixys.com who chase up stolen images on your behalf so far I have been paid out in excess of £ 2000 for stolen images , stuff that to me were just snapshots you never really know what a shots appeal is . So yes copyright every shot if they remove that you get more ,and use a firm to chase up your stolen shots it’s worth it
 
the black fox said:
There are a lot of myths and fantasies in this thread. First off I’m a wildlife hobbyist ,I have sold a few photos via Flickr ,and also allowed publication of a few shots in exchange for magazine or book copies there featured in .
For the last five years or so I have copyrighted every image. A couple of years ago I was put on to pixys.com who chase up stolen images on your behalf so far I have been paid out in excess of £ 2000 for stolen images , stuff that to me were just snapshots you never really know what a shots appeal is . So yes copyright every shot if they remove that you get more ,and use a firm to chase up your stolen shots it’s worth it
Click to expand...
That’d be helpful if you hadn’t used the word ‘copyright’ when you meant ‘watermark’.
 
Bollygum said:
I don't think I would have sold very much if I had focused on protecting my images.
Click to expand...
Bollygum said:
People just keep finding my stuff and then want to pay for it. If I don't put it out extensively on the web, then how are people going to find it? I
Click to expand...

But whats been discussed is not to put full resolution images on the web, a discrete watermark, contact details with the image and in the exif information. Make it easy for anyone interested to contact you, and limit the risk with smaller images. 800 or perhaps 1024 pixels is a reasonable size for someone to get an impression of the image.

The above are sensible precautions to take to stop places like the computer background screensavers or poster producers from using the image for their own gain.

But then it also depends on your market. Wedding photography is mostly working for the couple as a client and deliver the images to them as a set, usually with rights.
Sports photography is straight to the agency within minutes
Product photography is generally for a client, but those images can be used elsewhere. Several of the product shots I created for my last employer were also used by some of our customers without asking.

It sounds like you work in a very niche field. With DSLR's able to capture video and several magazines having an online presence as well, we found when shooting cars that there was an extra income stream available for short sting videos to accompany the articles online, or promote the magazine. No idea what they do now as I'm about 5 years out of that work now :(
 
Phil V said:
That’d be helpful if you hadn’t used the word ‘copyright’ when you meant ‘watermark’.
Click to expand...
Oops I stand corrected Phil :exit:
 
Byker28i said:
But whats been discussed is not to put full resolution images on the web, a discrete watermark, contact details with the image and in the exif information. Make it easy for anyone interested to contact you, and limit the risk with smaller images. 800 or perhaps 1024 pixels is a reasonable size for someone to get an impression of the image.

The above are sensible precautions to take to stop places like the computer background screensavers or poster producers from using the image for their own gain.

But then it also depends on your market. Wedding photography is mostly working for the couple as a client and deliver the images to them as a set, usually with rights.
Sports photography is straight to the agency within minutes
Product photography is generally for a client, but those images can be used elsewhere. Several of the product shots I created for my last employer were also used by some of our customers without asking.

It sounds like you work in a very niche field. With DSLR's able to capture video and several magazines having an online presence as well, we found when shooting cars that there was an extra income stream available for short sting videos to accompany the articles online, or promote the magazine. No idea what they do now as I'm about 5 years out of that work now :(
Click to expand...

I would question the common sense view that you need to stop the screen saver or poster producer from using your images. If there was no downside in doing this I would agree, but there is a downside.
1) Putting a watermark on all online images incurs a cost. Firstly, there is your time. I don't like spending time on something that is just work when I could spend it wandering the bush and taking photos. And, second - many sites will not display your photo if it has a watermark. You may think this could be an advantage, but the real value of the internet is the exposure it gives and anything that limits exposure can be a bad thing.
2) Only putting small images on the net. Sounds sensible? Few people will steal an 800x600 image, will they? And few people will bother to share an 800x600 image and few people will buy based on an 800x600 image.
3) Many photographers get upset when they get a request to use their photo and the requester won't pay anything and/or has clauses that imply wide ranging, free use of the image (eg media organisations). When questions about this are posed on photography forums the responses are dominated by those who say "Make them pay" or "Don't allow it". While I wouldn't say that all of these users of photos are honourable, many are and exposure is almost always a good thing.

My personal experience is, I believe, quite informative. About 6 years ago, I decided that there was little point in spending time protecting my photos from dishonourable people, as I wanted as many people as possible to see them. I had sold a few photos here and there, but it was more good to my ego than my bank balance and it was more important to me to focus on what I liked to photograph rather than on what people had paid for so far. I stopped worrying about watermarks (not that I'd ever bothered much), started to post pictures at the full resolution of my screen, which is now 4k, and generally stopped worrying about how to protect my images from all those thieves out there. Did this increase the theft of my photos? Probably by quite a lot, but it also seemed to increase my sales of photos, by an enormous amount. The final result is that now make quite a bit from still photography and even more from time lapse, and I don't have to live in a world dominated by paranoia.

There is no best answer for everyone, but I would suggest that one very effective way to access a world market is to use the internet. And protecting your images from thieves will also stop potential customers from seeing them - and buying them. Take your pick!
 
1. Watermark addition takes no time at all. I have it as a default option in Lightroom, selecting it off when I produce full res images.

2. Small images still get used, blog posts, facebook, websites don't need full resolution images so it doesn't limit these but it does stop sites taking your full res images and selling them. We've seen images taken sold on posters, screen background sites, mouse mats etc. Many people use free image hosting websites, from which these images are taken.

3. Free use of images - this depends on your view. Large organisations have budget for this, why shouldn't they pay? I have £15K invested in camera systems, my time, efforts and expenses in producing images. This should be rewarded, but it's up to you what that reward should be, be this monetary or other value to you. Only you can decide. I have had some great opportunities through working for no money or expenses only, I've also made enough money to buy a car from a series of images that I sold to a picture agency that went worldwide and all sorts of sales inbetween. Thats my choice though, why should others steal my images and make money from my work.

My personal experience is also, I believe, quite informative. I've had a large number of images stolen by an individual and included on a CD collection of images sold on ebay, which took a long time to resolve as ebay were slow to move against a premium seller. I've never had an issue with modestly watermarked small images and sales, or getting images published. In the old days contact sheets were used to decide on image selection, this is just a different method. I publish images on my website or image hosting service, people contact me for usage without any issues as generally I have the images of an event or vehicle they wish to use.

The internet is a great tool for distributing images, but theres also a number of unscrupulous and uninformed people out there. Protecting your images sensibly does not stop people from seeing them.

I see you post small images on your website. I think you're missing a trick by stripping the exif information which wouldn't impact on the presentation of the image on your site, Watermarks are very much a personal choice. I don't like large ones across the middle, preferring smaller ones bottom right.
 
Last edited:
Hi can anyone help with this question. I am starting work in a marketing role and photography is a major part of the role. I will be working as a self employed consultant - can you tell me what I do about Copyright? Does the Copyright remain mine as I am self employed or do they automatically get it as I am doing it on the time they are paying for? I want to set this out right from the start but don't really know where to look for the answers.

If I can retain the copyright will simply crediting myself for the shot with the copyright sign do this?

Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top