Watermarking your images.....likey/no likey?

[hewhoknows]

I know its a bit of a marmite question here but how many people watermark their images when posting to sites other than flickr and your own websites?

The only reason I ask is that Ive been taking a fair amount of sports photos recently and people have asked to see them online via sites such as facebook etc. I always upload them to places like this at 72dpi and maximum of 800 at the longest end but wondered if its worth watermarkign therm too just to ensure no one rips them.

Ir do you just not post to social media sites?

 

[Musicman]

Ir do you just not post to social media sites?

Well, I just don't do Facebook. Period.

 

[boliston]

I think the key to watermarking is keep it very discreet and at the edge of the pic only. Watermarking in the middle just looks plain gross.

 

[awp]

I think the key to watermarking is keep it very discreet and at the edge of the pic only. Watermarking in the middle just looks plain gross.

Nonsense. A discreet watermark is no use whatsoever. Thieves will just trim it off! Big and bold is necessary unfortunately.

 

[boliston]

Nonsense. A discreet watermark is no use whatsoever. Thieves will just trim it off! Big and bold is necessary unfortunately.

Better to post just low res then, or keep them off line if truly paranoid.

 

[fixedimage]

I've just looked at images by the two people above me.

I looked through a few pages of boliston's Flickr and engaged with the images I saw and enjoyed them.

I looked at the first 3 images awp's stock library page and closed the tab. The big ugly watermark was a huge barrier to my engagement with the images.

If I ever was in need of an image of seaside towns or the interior of an old railway carriage, I might remember boliston's name.

I can't think why I'd want to revisit awp's site.

Plastering an image with a watermark that makes it useless does not mean you will be inundated with people offering you large sums of money for a non watermarked image, they'll just move on and forget your work.

Each case of someone taking your image and using it on facebook or even on their website is not a lost sale, these people were never going to and never will pay for an image to use in this way. Perhaps in a perfect world they would but that's all pie in the sky.

I only post low res images online and subtly watermark them with the web address for my blog which has all my contact details and links to things like the books I have made through Blurb etc.

 

[awp]

Each case of someone taking your image and using it on facebook or even on their website is not a lost sale, these people were never going to and never will pay for an image to use in this way.

These are not the people who matter - without security watermarking you images start appearing everywhere - even in daily papers - other commercial websites and in print. Sad fact but you have to watermark to protect them.

Watermarking seems to have little effect on stock sales and prints either. If your reason for visiting my site was to find free images to nick -- then I wouldn't want you back!

 

[fixedimage]

These are not the people who matter - without security watermarking you images start appearing everywhere - even in daily papers - other commercial websites and in print. Sad fact but you have to watermark to protect them.

Watermarking seems to have little effect on stock sales and prints either. If your reason for visiting my site was to find free images to nick -- then I wouldn't want you back!

And when I find them being used in such a manner I'll send an invoice, voi la my images just made me some money while all yours have done is make people think "what an ugly watermark".

 

[fixedimage]

If it was simply a choice between getting paid or not then it's a no brainer but in reality the choices you have to make about watermarking and dissemination of your images are far more complex and where heavy watermarking is concerned I believe the choice is very often closer to letting images be seen for free or not at all.

A subtle watermark can, in my opinion, bring that choice closer to let my images advertise me or not be seen at all.

 

[awp]

I used to spend hours and hours chasing up and invoicing for illegal use of pictures - that has almost stopped because of watermarking. Legitamate sales have not been affected.

 

[fixedimage]

So you're watermarking means you're making less money? If there's no-one to send invoices to then there's no-one to (eventually) pay them.
If you had said legitimate sales increased I would have said you were arguing a good case for obtrusive watermarking

 

[awp]

So you're watermarking means you're making less money?

no -I didn't day that. I'm getting the money but without the hassle.

 

[fixedimage]

AWP, the RedBull thread that you have also posted in proves that subtle watermarking which allows full appreciation of images can lead to sales.

I have to wonder whether that image would have been picked up by RedBull had there been a very obtrusive watermark (such as you use) on the image.

I have my opinion but admittedly, it is just that, opinion.

 

[awp]

Hard to prove one way or the other.

 

[fixedimage]

no -I didn't day that. I'm getting the money but without the hassle.

You used to have two streams of income,
1, Legitimate sales
2, Invoices for illegal use

One of your income streams has been unaffected and one has ceased. Therefor you now make less money than before you obtrusively watermarked.

Or am I missing something?

 

[whiteflyer]

You would have to spend ALL your time searching the web to find every unwatermarked image so you could send the invoice, if fact it would take so long you'd not have time to take another photo.

You have a very simple choice to make

A) Your willing to give images away for free (then don't watermark)
B) you want payment for your images (Watermark)

As for awp's stock library, it's not there for your engagement with the images, it there to SELL images to people/companies who KNOW what they are looking for.

A stock library and a photo gallery/flickr are totality different things.

.

 

[stupar]

As for awp's stock library, it's not there for your engagement with the images, it there to SELL images to people/companies who KNOW what they are looking for.

A stock library and a photo gallery /facebook/flickr are totality different things.

Totally agree. I've been on awp's stock site and I spent ages looking all the variations in genres If shoot for stock imagery. At no point was I distracted.

 

[stokes]

after having a couple of images stolen by an agency and one used by a national on their website and the other printed in a local im watermarking all the time now.

its bloody sad, but ho hum.

 

[fixedimage]

You would have to spend ALL your time searching the web to find every unwatermarked image so you could send the invoice, if fact it would take so long you'd not have time to take another photo.

You have a very simple choice to make

A) Your willing to give images away for free (then don't watermark)
B) you want payment for your images (Watermark)

The bit I have put in bold makes it seem like you think watermarking your images means they will magically earn you money - possibly not your intention to come across like this - and that's what I object to.

As for awp's stock library, it's not there for your engagement with the images, it there to SELL images to people/companies who KNOW what they are looking for.

A stock library and a photo gallery/flickr are totality different things.

.

I totally agree and perhaps someone that has navigated to AWPs site has decided that he is the photographer who's work they want but I maintain that given a page of images, some of which are obscured by an obtrusive watermark and some that were not, your attention would always be grabbed more by the unobtrusively watermarked ones and that would be the same whatever your motivation for looking at such images was.

 

[flossie]

take another approach... one that is more 21st century where you are selling services instead of 19th where you are selling goods : if you put any image on line, it will be copied and reproduced - so treat it as advertising YOU and stop worrying about the actual image itself.

Put a small watermark / name / id / link in the corner of the image. If the viewer likes it, they may commision you to come work for them for a few hours / days. You make more money that way than sending out endless invoices for trivial amounts of money. If they don't...well, they weren't going to pay you for the use of the photo anyway - and they certainly won't pay you again in the future after getting a snotty invoice.

Per-shot/print/copy sales is dead/dying/on its last legs. Stop trying to fight it, and look for new ways to make money from photography.


It would be nice sometimes to make Residuals from each repeat showings of my (non-photographic) work as it used to be in the past - but the reality is nowadays that I get paid per production day, and my work is shown shown endlessly on every channel and online, instead of being locked-up in a vault and never shown again due to restrictive agreements, like it was in the past. As a result of the repeated showings (for which I don't get paid), I get more exposure, my profile is lifted, and so I am more likely to get asked to do more work (for which I do get paid). So its win-win...sort-of. But its the reality of media today.

 

[Wheels]

What about us hobby photographers? Do we need to watermark? I have had various comments regarding this, and it seems it's 50/50 if I should watermark mine (I know I'm not in the league of AWP in terms of photography) but should us beginners and hobby photographers watermark?

 

[stokes]

I'm a hobbist, and thanks to watermarking have made enough cash to buy new lenses, if they were not watermarked those images wouldn't have made me a penny... hmm

 

[neil_1980]

For hobby personally I think a small watermark in the corner is the best bet.

Doesn't detract from the image and if people like it they can see where it came from

 

[fixedimage]

take another approach... one that is more 21st century where you are selling services instead of 19th where you are selling goods : if you put any image on line, it will be copied and reproduced - so treat it as advertising YOU and stop worrying about the actual image itself.

A very good point, I've seen plenty examples of images being used that still have the istock watermark on them.

Put a small watermark / name / id / link in the corner of the image. If the viewer likes it, they may commision you to come work for them for a few hours / days. You make more money that way than sending out endless invoices for trivial amounts of money. If they don't...well, they weren't going to pay you for the use of the photo anyway - and they certainly won't pay you again in the future after getting a snotty invoice.

Per-shot/print/copy sales is dead/dying/on its last legs. Stop trying to fight it, and look for new ways to make money from photography.


It would be nice sometimes to make Residuals from each repeat showings of my (non-photographic) work as it used to be in the past - but the reality is nowadays that I get paid per production day, and my work is shown shown endlessly on every channel and online, instead of being locked-up in a vault and never shown again due to restrictive agreements, like it was in the past. As a result of the repeated showings (for which I don't get paid), I get more exposure, my profile is lifted, and so I am more likely to get asked to do more work (for which I do get paid). So its win-win...sort-of. But its the reality of media today.

All good points.

The advocates of obtrusive watermarking are like the people that say NEVER!!! give up your copyright.

If someone wants to pay me to take photographs for them and wants the copyright for those photos they are welcome to it.

I work as a photographer in a climbing centre every 2nd weekend and I happily hand over my copyright for minimum wage because it's a million times better a way to earn £6 an hour than standing at a checkout or stacking shelves.

Heck even if someone wanted to buy the copyright to something I've shot for myself I'd have to be pretty attached to it to not be willing to sell it.

Taking more photos is easy and nowadays, largely free.

Money doesn't always come so easily.

 

[Wheels]

I had a discreet watermark in the corner of mine recently and a mate off here tore it to shreds, he managed to remove my watermark as if it never existed all within a minute or two.

 

[Musicman]

Nonsense. A discreet watermark is no use whatsoever. Thieves will just trim it off! Big and bold is necessary unfortunately.

If they trim it off or remove it, they're setting themselves up for you to prove deliberate intent to infringe your copyright, but they've also modified your work without your permission (a second infringement on top of the use) and potentially they've also committed a criminal offence by so doing.

 

[fixedimage]

I'm a hobbist, and thanks to watermarking have made enough cash to buy new lenses, if they were not watermarked those images wouldn't have made me a penny... hmm

Congratulations.

I must admit I was worried when I clicked on your Flickr link that your images were all going to be really obtrusively watermarked and you'd have proved me very wrong!

I think your watermark is just about right actually, it's large enough that people might want to remove it but can't just crop into the image to do so yet small enough that it doesn't distract from the image.

My watermark is probably small enough to be just cropped out or just left in.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

Personally, I don't like any kind of watermark. A small logo on the edge generally looks quite tacky (imho), and if you slap a big ugly watermarks across the image..aside from making it ugly, whoever is tempted to steal it will just steal someone elses. They might as well steal yours, then you can have a go at charging them for it...especially if it's gone to print.

 

[whiteflyer]

....., whoever is tempted to steal it will just steal someone elses. .....

That totally depends on the type of image.

It is doubtful that the parents or grandparents of this canoeist are going to steal a photo of some other random canoeist. Now having this watermarked has stopped them downloading and printing it off and allowed me to sell multiple copies of prints to them. (of course without the watermark and silly frame.)


Sowerby Bridge Slalom by Mark Sanderson Photography, on Flickr

 

[awp]

Or am I missing something?

You are! I'm not - see below.

If they trim it off or remove it, they're setting themselves up for you to prove deliberate intent to infringe your copyright, but they've also modified your work without your permission (a second infringement on top of the use) and potentially they've also committed a criminal offence by so doing.

All true but - I used to spend a lot of time chasing illegal use of pictures - invoices - phone calls - lawyers on one occasion - it is a HUGE hassle that has now gone away. I don't need that grief. Now people buy - or not - but it's all a lot simpler to administer - no mess and no nasty business.

 

[awp]

I work as a photographer in a climbing centre every 2nd weekend and I happily hand over my copyright

If you're employed by the climbing centre for a minimum wage - then it's unlikely the copyright is yours anyway. Copyright will likely belong to your employer.

 

[phil8139]

They dont get more ugly than this - (not the kid )

[/url] Magic U13 full_00016 by Ballpix Sports Photography, on Flickr[/IMG]

And they still get stolen, but shame means nothing to most kids nowadays. Even the 'grownups' teams I did, still stole the images rather than pay a couple of quid. :bonk:

Watermarking has its place, it will deter some, but not all thefts. I would rather they steal an image like the one above, and they will be shown for what they are, or should I put a discreet 'well it's free advertising' one in the corner?

 

[flossie]

That totally depends on the type of image.

It is doubtful that the parents or grandparents of this canoeist are going to steal a photo of some other random canoeist. Now having this watermarked has stopped them downloading and printing it off and allowed me to sell multiple copies of prints to them. (of course without the watermark and silly frame.)

I'm sorry, but you completely set yourself up for this to happen... so don't start screaming at me for breaking your copyright, but... :

Without any experience at it doing it, and with just the clone/heal tool in lightroom, I was able to completely remove the watermark from the centre of your image. (and crop off the border, of course). I could also have stuck it in any pixel editor and smudged the colours convincingly.

I deliberatly didn't do it perfectly, so its obvious its been fiddled with, but to have done it properly wouldn't have taken much more effort. It would certainly pass the "Facebook Test" if I finished-off the white bar and moved the clone spots slightly so there weren't the black marks:

If I had Photoshop CS5 with the silly Content-Aware Fill tool, it would probably have taken even less time.

p.s.
stripping your EXIF would have taken one click too, of course.

 

[Craikeybaby]

The only reason I ask is that Ive been taking a fair amount of sports photos recently and people have asked to see them online via sites such as facebook etc. I always upload them to places like this at 72dpi and maximum of 800 at the longest end but wondered if its worth watermarkign therm too just to ensure no one rips them.

Ir do you just not post to social media sites?

Back to the OP - When I did motorsport photography I posted images to social networks, BUT watermarked (logo and URL) at a small size. If people wanted non watermarked images for social networks they could buy them.

 

[sc0ttie]

A watermark which is not very obtrusive is ok I reckon. I have watermarked all my images on the net, and still get some comments from other photographers who do not seem to have enough imagination to see past a small rectangle logo in the corner of an image, like this one....http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisengland/5654535738/in/photostream

It annoys me when other photographers on flickr complain about watermarking. If you like the image, you like the image, but since all my images are watermarked from day one, if you cant hack that, why even bother to comment about it?
I just post sarcastic comments if anyone comments about my watermarks now, as it is just a joke that they are even bothering to comment on the watermark!

 

[fixedimage]

You are! I'm not - see below.




All true but - I used to spend a lot of time chasing illegal use of pictures - invoices - phone calls - lawyers on one occasion - it is a HUGE hassle that has now gone away. I don't need that grief. Now people buy - or not - but it's all a lot simpler to administer - no mess and no nasty business.

So you make less money but have less hassle.

In my opinion until someone does a scientific study there's no real right or wrong answer, just what you are happy with personally.

Listening to what other people tell you about this is like listening to the people that say only use manual mode or everyone should shoot RAW.

People know what works for them and seem to think that everyone else should work the same way and get very worked up when they don't do so.

Personally, I think that obtrusive watermarking interferes with the viewing of my images so I'd rather watermark subtly or not at all and have my images appreciated to their full.

I think that a lot of forms of watermarking can look - and therefor make your images look - very amateurish.

I'm right now thinking I might re-upload everything to my Flickr with no watermark...

I don't see image 'thefts' for online use as lost sales so I don't worry about this happening and I only upload small, low res files to stop unauthorised printed use.

Other photographers who are doing different types of work to what I am might/probably feel otherwise and may have the experience and records to show that obtrusive watermarking doesn't harm their business. That doesn't mean it's right for me or for anyone else though.

 

[fixedimage]

A watermark which is not very obtrusive is ok I reckon. I have watermarked all my images on the net, and still get some comments from other photographers who do not seem to have enough imagination to see past a small rectangle logo in the corner of an image, like this one....http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisengland/5654535738/in/photostream

It annoys me when other photographers on flickr complain about watermarking. If you like the image, you like the image, but since all my images are watermarked from day one, if you cant hack that, why even bother to comment about it?
I just post sarcastic comments if anyone comments about my watermarks now, as it is just a joke that they are even bothering to comment on the watermark!

I'd never feel strongly enough about it to leave a comment on your image but seeing as it's being discussed here I'll give my opinion.

Looking through your Flickr it struck me that I was seeing your images not as nice artistic images that tell me something about you but more like stock images.

You might not mind that and I don't know how much of it is down to your subject choice and how much is down to the watermark but given the way I want my images to be seen I'm really thinking I should get rid of all the watermarking.

 

[Musicman]

Looking through your Flickr it struck me that I was seeing your images not as nice artistic images that tell me something about you but more like stock images.

I'll have to admit, I was having a browse of sc0ttie's photostream too, and I got the same impression (a bit of local interest for me as I live in Carshalton).

Then I read the fourth item his New Year's Resolutions

I think the debate highlights that, for various reasons, watermarks are perhaps more appropriate for some types of photography, stock shots being a prime example.

 

[stokes]

I'm a hobbist, and thanks to watermarking have made enough cash to buy new lenses, if they were not watermarked those images wouldn't have made me a penny... hmm

Congratulations.

I must admit I was worried when I clicked on your Flickr link that your images were all going to be really obtrusively watermarked and you'd have proved me very wrong!

I think your watermark is just about right actually, it's large enough that people might want to remove it but can't just crop into the image to do so yet small enough that it doesn't distract from the image.

My watermark is probably small enough to be just cropped out or just left in.

Thankyou. I like my watermark alot. i went through a few before settling on this one for now. im in the process of changing my site over, but the number of direct hits ie: people typing my domain into their browsers is 40+ a day on average.... which is incredible....

I can see through peoples watermarks, and in general done right i like them alot as it instantly identify the photographer. i actually prefer watermarks that are not just words on the bottom edge, and prefer something in one corner... a logo is better than text in my eyes.

 

[fixedimage]

I think the debate highlights that, for various reasons, watermarks are perhaps more appropriate for some types of photography, stock shots being a prime example.

Yeah totally.

A blanket "Watermark everything" or "Watermarks ruin photos" is really not the way to approach it.

I'm thinking of removing mine because I can't think of a time that I have looked at work by a photographer I admire and seen a watermark but this is probably because I'm looking at fine art photographers/photography most of the time.

I'm sure if you type something like 'windfarm' into Google images that majority of the images would be watermarked.