Watermark or not to watermark.

BintyMcFrazzles

BintyMcFrazzles

Suspended / Banned
Messages
402
Name
Jackie
Edit My Images
No
I would describe myself as an "enthusiastic amateur", so whilst my photographs aren't exactly going to give Annie Leibovitz any stiff competition, I also don't want anyone using my photographs without permission.
Anyway, I sometimes put a small watermark symbol on my photos. I know it's not going to stop some people stealing, after all, if it's on the internet, it can be downloaded, but it could make people think twice! How do others feel about watermarking? I've never liked them when they're massive and spread right across the photograph, and when I watermark, it tends to be small and in a corner. I also realise that people could potentially clone out my watermark, but hey-ho.

Who else watermarks their photos? Just wondering what people think about it, and does it spoil a photo?

Here, for example, I've only done it small (and obviously it could be cloned or cropped off).


Mouldy by Jackie XLY, on Flickr
 
Despite the soothsayers, I do generally watermark, both visibly and via digimarc. If someone wants the pic then a courtesy request will usually bring them a gratis copy.

Editors can request full res copy but at least they realise they have to pay.

How many times on here have we heard togs winging about giving away a free copy, then feeling cheated after the event.

Those who feel it destroys their viewing enjoyment can do either of the above or move on.
 
Last edited:
BintyMcFrazzles said:
Who else watermarks their photos? Just wondering what people think about it, and does it spoil a photo?
Click to expand...

I watermark mine.. yes it does ruin the photo.. i probably have the biggest ugliest watermark on these forums... If anyone wants the picture without the watermark thats easy enough.. hand over some money :)

not everyone has the same needs as me.. depends why you want to watermark.. for me its protection .. for you it might be more a signature..
 
I've never watermarked, I've never taken a photo with the intention of making money off it though so that't imo the deciding factor

If you're pro then you either put a small unobtrusive mark on as a signature or you slap one right across it to stop unpaid use

all the JoeBloggsPhotography watermarks all over Facebook on random snapshots are just some bizarre vanity exercise and are pointless imo
 
It's not about the intention of making money (although that would be nice) or losing money. It's simply about someone downloading my photos and using them and sharing without my permission or me not knowing about it.
Okay, I know it won't stop some people downloading/sharing, but at least if it's watermarked, my name is on it. So if they share it, it's still got my name on it.

mjScall said:
all the JoeBloggsPhotography watermarks all over Facebook on random snapshots are just some bizarre vanity exercise and are pointless imo
Click to expand...
They aren't "snap shots" (okay, some are), and some people might scoff at them, but they are my work, which over the years, I've spent hours and hours working on.
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
It's not about the intention of making money (although that would be nice) or losing money. It's simply about someone downloading my photos and using them and sharing without my permission or me not knowing about it.
Okay, I know it won't stop some people downloading/sharing, but at least if it's watermarked, my name is on it. So if they share it, it's still got my name on it.


They aren't "snap shots" (okay, some are), and some people might scoff at them, but they are my work, which over the years, I've spent hours and hours working on.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why you would care that it has your name on or not. If you aren't a professional entity then some random person knowing your name for the split second that they look at the photo seems like a complete irrelevance to me. I've shared loads of photos on social media, but as I'm the one sharing my name is already written above any post I make so a watermark is totally redundant for me.

If you were using it to try and get your name out and about as a pro then it makes sense (although highly inefficient I'd imagine), and would certainly help if you have a strong style individual style to go with the signature.

And no offence was meant with the snap shots comment as it wasn't aimed at your work specifically, more the growing trend of everyone deciding to watermark things just to puff up their egos on social media
 
mjScall said:
I just don't understand why you would care that it has your name on or not. If you aren't a professional entity then some random person knowing your name for the split second that they look at the photo seems like a complete irrelevance to me. I've shared loads of photos on social media, but as I'm the one sharing my name is already written above any post I make so a watermark is totally redundant for me.
Click to expand...

True, and I get what you're saying.
I think if people see a watermark, they might not just "right-click>save" (It would stop me). Some of the work I've done, I am thinking of getting printed on canvas (for personal use), but I don't want other people doing that (without me getting paid, even though my photos are technically not for sale).

mjScall said:
And no offence was meant with the snap shots comment as it wasn't aimed at your work specifically, more the growing trend of everyone deciding to watermark things just to puff up their egos on social media
Click to expand...
None was taken. :)
 
My view is that if you intend to make money from the photo then slap a watermark across it and make it commercially unusable in doing so. A small discrete watermark is just self promotion and that's fine but other than that I don't think it serves much purpose.
 
I suppose that most of my photos are on flickr, and I do put underneath in the description ©name and it is ©all rights reserved, and you can't just right-click>save on their.
But IF people still want to use it, they'll just screen shot (or whatever), anyway, so if all that won't put them off, neither will a watermark. If they are that determined, they'll just clone out/crop a watermark, anyway.
 
Last edited:
BintyMcFrazzles said:
I know it's not going to stop some people stealing
Click to expand...

So why bother?

BintyMcFrazzles said:
, after all, if it's on the internet, it can be downloaded, but it could make people think twice!
Click to expand...

Nope.. if they want it, they'll remove the watermark (takes 10 seconds) and they'll use it any way.

If it's just to publicise your name etc... make a website.

People want to spread their work around as much as possible on the internet, but then get all paranoid about it being appropriated :)

Just post low res stuff that can't be printed, and don't worry about it.. you'll go mad otherwise. The only real way to stop it, is to not post things on the internet.
 
Last edited:
I watermark my work photos I use on my website which also go on social media, these are for promotion of my business & for some reason when I post my personal stuff on my Flickr I don't, but I don't make money from my photography if I did I would water mark everything, like Kipax it would be big & ugly but nobody is going to pay for my photo's :D It's your photo at the end of the day Jackie if you want to pop your name on it feel free :)
 
I used to, had aperture set up to add Steve Vickers photography etc to all my images on export before realising that for an hobbyist photographer it looked a little pretentious, especially someone as crap as me. Don't bother now and no matter how hard I Google I can never find anyone who's stolen one of my images :LOL:
 
Last edited:
I watermark, tastefully, don't obscure the image. I'm not an idiot, I know anyone with half a brain cell can remove it. I just want people to know I took it. And if they're curious to see more, they can google that 'picturemaker' name and check it out.
 
I watermark decent photos (but not phone pics!) if I put them on FB with just my name and the copyright symbol.

Just my choice.
 
I wouldn't put anything on the Internet without a watermark. If it's removed by someone it proves intent to steal knowing the image is copyrighted and is not looked on favourably by a court.
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
Who else watermarks their photos? Just wondering what people think about it, and does it spoil a photo?
Click to expand...

I think it only spoils the photo if the photo wasn't composed with the intention of the watermark being an integral part of the image; otherwise it's an irrelevant and extraneous item that should be cropped out (or cloned out, according to taste).

I don't watermark, but I rarely post images and don't have a flickr account any more. If anything of mine appears on the internet I usually make sure it's low resolution. I'm not really interested in posting images though so I don't have worries about copying.
 
Last edited:
Personally I never watermark, and I don't like to see them. Unless they are big and really ugly, they are as you suggested, easy to heal/clone or crop out. In my lowly opinion though, they are not the worse offences that can be committed in post process. I'd reserve that for heavy PP in general.
 
I too add a watermark/logo to my images. I have only started doing so this year which coincided with my current project. As @sunnyside_up Beth and @Sir SR Shaheed, its more so people know who took it.
I too am under no illusion that it is in some way protecting the image, my logo would be gone in 60 seconds with photoshop (other image editing software is available ;))
 
I used to. I stopped when I realised a) how easy they are to remove, b} how rubbish they look, and c) I just think they're a bit pretentious.
If someone is intent on using it, they'll take it, remove the WM and use it anyway.
 
sunnyside_up said:
I watermark, tastefully, don't obscure the image. I'm not an idiot, I know anyone with half a brain cell can remove it. I just want people to know I took it. And if they're curious to see more, they can google that 'picturemaker' name and check it out.
Click to expand...

snap - nothing to do with protection. More branding and a nice simple way of contacting me.

I always think that if you're worried about something being stolen then don't put it online. If its bought and paid for already.....I know that idea doesn't work for all ;)
 
I think watermarking is important especially if you're taking it into a business level. You hear loads of stories on the internet that pictures have been taken an used without permission. Although I'd be happy that people wanted my images I wouldn't be happy that they took them without consent and tried to pass them off as their own. What I tend to do is use the same watermark but I blend it into the photo so it doesn't distract. For example my on my avatar I'd have the watermark in almost the same grey colour as my t-shirt so it can still be seen if you look for it but if you don't pay attention you'll barely notice it.

When it comes to selling images I would use a watermark across the photo like Getty Images does etc.
 
sunnyside_up said:
I watermark, tastefully, don't obscure the image. I'm not an idiot, I know anyone with half a brain cell can remove it. I just want people to know I took it. And if they're curious to see more, they can google that 'picturemaker' name and check it out.
Click to expand...

^ this.

I view it more as branding, than protecting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top