Watermarking your images.....likey/no likey?
- Thread starter hewhoknows
- Start date
W
whiteflyer
Guest
You'll NEVER stop someone who is determined to copy an image, same as Adobe will never stop the people who are determined not to pay £650 for photoshop.
You will just make it harder for the casual user, and to remove a watermark so the images is good enough to print takes a lot more time and effort than most people are prepared to do.
As for it going on facebook, yea that's always a problem with or without a watermark, but I've found facebook to be very quick in removing stolen images when informed.
Last edited by a moderator:
W
whiteflyer
Guest
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?
I know Kipax has also started to mark his "stolen from" and I do kind of agree with the statement that it shows them for what they are.
fixedimage
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 902
- Edit My Images
- No
An interesting point since Adobe are known to make their software available on the illegal download market, thus making it the program that everyone is familiar with which means that it is THE photo editing package that professionals and businesses will invest in which has allowed them to push the price up.
That action could be related to the points that others and I have made about allowing your images to get out there and advertise you.
stokes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,113
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ive just remembered a work college of mine asked me to sort out some photographs that she wanted.
She gave them to me on cd and asked me to remove the watermark, couldnt help but chuckle..... told her why it was there and how it was easy to remove the watermark.
all she needed to do was go to www.whatever.com and pay him for the photographs she wanted!
She gave them to me on cd and asked me to remove the watermark, couldnt help but chuckle..... told her why it was there and how it was easy to remove the watermark.
all she needed to do was go to www.whatever.com and pay him for the photographs she wanted!
Craikeybaby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,590
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you got anything that proves this?
fixedimage
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 902
- Edit My Images
- No
No.
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Matt just out of curiosity I pulled a pic off your flickr resized it to 18x12 and removed your watermark and it took a few minutes (and I took my time) if somebody want to really steal your pics neither the size or the watermark is going to stop them sadly.
If someone comes up with a foolproof way of stopping our pics being ripped off they'll make a fortune I suspect.
If someone comes up with a foolproof way of stopping our pics being ripped off they'll make a fortune I suspect.
fixedimage
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 902
- Edit My Images
- No
ooops yeah, 800 px on long side and 72dpi I should have clarified
You probably meant 800 pixels on the long side and 72 Ppi.
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I watermark all of my sports images there is a big and bold file number in the top left corner and if someone crops the image to remove that watermark there is a second very small unobtrusive watermark in the centre of the image that most people don't notice until you really look, I also don't upload sports images above 700px wide as this falls under the facebook download option, as yes I do use facebook
Matt
MWHCVT
Matt
MWHCVT
No, yes, yes
ooops yeah, 800 px on long side and 72dpi I should have clarified
assuming a 3:2 image size you are uploading 800x533 images. That would offer a pretty much perfect 2.6"x1.7" photo, pretty small but it could still offer a passable 6"x4" print
You will notice that no-where in there did i mention dpi or ppi, thats how relevant setting files to 72dpi is
W
whiteflyer
Guest
At the end of the day a burglar can still breaking to my home, doesn't stop me locking the doors when I go out.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
theres no real point arguing about it, its just one of those topics that are very divided. like canon/nikon, mac/pc.. etc.
personally im pro watermarking. coming from a sports event photography area photos in our gallery for sale get watermarked to death. and that still doesnt stop them appearing on facebook.
likewise flickr, anything that goes on there that im interested in keeping gets a watermark at least partly over the main content if possible. its all to easy for people to see your images via google/yahoo images and the API engine (if the settings are enabled on your account, but theyre on by default) so all to quickly you can potentially lose control of your work.
yeah you dont have to watermark and you can invoice those who abuse your copyright, but only if you find out.
personally im pro watermarking. coming from a sports event photography area photos in our gallery for sale get watermarked to death. and that still doesnt stop them appearing on facebook.
likewise flickr, anything that goes on there that im interested in keeping gets a watermark at least partly over the main content if possible. its all to easy for people to see your images via google/yahoo images and the API engine (if the settings are enabled on your account, but theyre on by default) so all to quickly you can potentially lose control of your work.
yeah you dont have to watermark and you can invoice those who abuse your copyright, but only if you find out.
Bristolian
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,428
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From personal experience I suspect AWP is actually making more money (i.e. realising an increased profit) from a reduced turnover. The time it takes to track down illegal use, gain evidence, send invoices, chase invoices and (maybe) instigate legal action costs money - often more than you get back.
Like AWP I got fed up with it and only now use password protected galleries but as my work is all commissioned and not displayed on the Internet in other ways. Images are still watermarked although I leave it to the gallery site to do that rather than spend time doing it myself.
Each to their own ~ live and let live
DazJW
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 782
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly.
A thief who wants to get into your house will be quite happy to knock it through or smash a window, but it's enough to stop any old randomer waltzing in and walking out with your TV just because they can.
Watermarking is like locking the door. If someone wants the image enough they'll still take it and put up with the watermark (which can also function as advertising for you), or do some work to get rid of it. But if they're just looking for an easy image to lift or they're a normal person without the software to be cloning out bits of images or they haven't realised they can crop it (even in this day and age a lot of people are still ignorant about anything remotely technical, look at most people's knowledge of cars and consider how long cars have been a part of people's everyday lives).
A lot of people don't even know photos are copyrighted because the ease with which you can find them suggests they're there to be taken.
People on photography forums seem to forget how much more knowledge they have about these things than an average person, and it's normally an average person that's trying to steal your photos.
There are some interesting non-intrusive watermark techniques around, almost verging on stenography. A basic example would be layering a watermark and turning the opacity down so low it's not visible unless you fudge about with the image.
I don't think they are much use for the guys here trying to prevent people stealing their images in the first place, but perhaps a nice middle ground for those who don't like the look of watermarks but still want to provide some protection. You could put a warning up "these images are protected by stenography" but as per Daz's post I doubt the average phot stealer would understand it.
I don't think they are much use for the guys here trying to prevent people stealing their images in the first place, but perhaps a nice middle ground for those who don't like the look of watermarks but still want to provide some protection. You could put a warning up "these images are protected by stenography" but as per Daz's post I doubt the average phot stealer would understand it.
On my own stock site the watermarks are added automatically - I don't have to do it. The only people who have ever complained about them are other photographers on here. The public don't care and professional buyers know why they're there and can see past a watermark.
OP
hewhoknows
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,077
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would be interested to see the image you took mate, feel free to post it into this thread.
In all honesty my watermark is pathetic, mainly due to me being in the 'dont like watermarks' camp for so long. However, if take the time to drive to an event, spend hours photographing it and hours in my office processing shots I really would like people to do the decent thing and pay for prints rather than hijacking them from my flickr or website. But alas not everyone will do the honest thing and alot of folks will try to get the shot for free, whether that be for online or offline usage.
Im far from a professional, purely an keen amautre with hopes of becoming a pro-togger far in the future and everywhere I go to take photos is 100% off my own back using my own time and money. However my time is precious to me, I have 2 small kids and a wife that dont get the pleasure of my company when im out taking pictures so would like to protect my images when possible which has led to the question in this tread.
Im firmly in the 'pro' camp for watermarks now and will be designing a cool little logo for certain types of images (maily sports stuff) and will be watermarking in the future. I already upload at small files which I hope will help things also.
Last edited:
AJQS
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This is what I do on here, and facebook, but Flickr gets a big blue banner with the image title on it.
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here you go, I can't get it any bigger in flickr but it's 2764x 2022 I't wouldn't look too great at 18x12 but you'd get a half decent a4 off it I think, when you want me to delete it let me know.
Wayne
WillyB
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 353
- Name
- William
- Edit My Images
- No
During this thread it is mentioned on several occasions that people 'track down' others who have used their images unlawfully.
I have some images on Flickr and haven't a clue whether anyone has even looked at them, let alone used them.
How do you find if anyone has used your images, other than by chance?
I have some images on Flickr and haven't a clue whether anyone has even looked at them, let alone used them.
How do you find if anyone has used your images, other than by chance?
Last edited:
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is a free search tool called tineye but it's never found any of my pics that I tried it with, even the ones I know are there.
Zukabak
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 250
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't like watermarking, but it's a complete necessity as far as I'm concerned.
I've had a couple of people say "How can I get those pics you put on Facebook/Flickr etc, all the ones I saved have got your name all over them".
I don't buy into any of this 'free advertising' lark either, as if you put a nice, discreet WM in the corner it'll just get cropped out.
I've had a couple of people say "How can I get those pics you put on Facebook/Flickr etc, all the ones I saved have got your name all over them".
I don't buy into any of this 'free advertising' lark either, as if you put a nice, discreet WM in the corner it'll just get cropped out.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
flickr stats if theyve linked direct to your photo or via the API if you havent disabled that.
otherwise mostly by chance, some of our "fans" on facebook are daft enough not to have locked down their accounts..
OP
hewhoknows
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,077
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here you go, I can't get it any bigger in flickr but it's 2764x 2022 I't wouldn't look too great at 18x12 but you'd get a half decent a4 off it I think, when you want me to delete it let me know.
Wayne
Ah right, thats not my photo though mate its flossie's image
But i can definately see where your coming from, the watermark seems to have been easily removed without much damage done to the image, and im sure if more time was spent on it then it could have been done with no trace of the WM.
I still think there needs to be a way we can protect our images though, whether that be by WM or another way??
Last edited:
WillyB
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 353
- Name
- William
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for that. Bit of a noob where flickr is concerned. Can you elaborate on that a little please?
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a bright green bold watermark accross my pics and I upload them to my website.. I do this after experience what does happen.. not what I think will happen..
If you want to make money then you should watermark Your doing a sports event.. the only people interested are the people taking part or family friends.. TP users, other photogrpahers or people passing by are not interested..This is not a portfolio.. this is your stock..
The people that are interested will simply copy and paste into facebook etc ... yes even with a large watermark accross the middle they will still do it.. I know this for fact
Dont worry about print.. dont worry about dpi ... they arn't printing them.. they are passing them around over the internet and after the first person takes your copyright off the bottom right corner.. the next person who takes it from them has no idea where it came from.. soon all the teams and families have copies of your picture and you have nothinmg to sell
OK heres the first problem... and many people have posted in this thread saying they dotn use or post to social media sites.. well so what? the poeple stealing your pictures do.. thats the problem..
If you want your pictures as a portfolio and advertisment of how good you are or basically just to show off then dont watermark.. If you want to sell pictures to people interested in the sporting event then you must watermark.. it isnt a bovril question... watermark or lose your stock..
For anyone upset at this point
you ahve to understand the difference between stock, portfolio blah blah and pictures you want to sell to participants and family.. Bright green letter in bold STOLEN FROM KIPAX.COM ... there are hundreds and hundreds on facebook with that accross them..I couldnt fill out the facebook forms quick enough to ahve them removed there are that many
People dont care... I do
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
correct. if linked externally it will tell you there.
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Ah right, thats not my photo though mate its flossie's image
Actually it's MY image
flossie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 560
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you want to make money then you should watermark Your doing a sports event.. the only people interested are the people taking part or family friends...
The people that are interested will simply copy and paste into facebook etc ... yes even with a large watermark accross the middle they will still do it.. I know this for fact
(...)
For anyone upset at this point
Bright green letter in bold STOLEN FROM KIPAX.COM ... there are hundreds and hundreds on facebook with that accross them..I couldnt fill out the facebook forms quick enough to ahve them removed there are that many
People dont care... I do
This says to me your business model is failing. You have a ready market that desperatly wants your pictures, yet you can't get money directly from them on your victorian per-shot basis. So find another way to charge them...think laterally...
To take an example - some bands at concerts, instead of fighting a losing battle against people recording the shows, instead sell punters a USB stick directly recorded that night, which includes a unique code to download any missing/unfinished material at a later stage...result, they make sales they would never have otherwise made, and the punters get something better than they could manage themselves. Everyone is happy, people will pay for things if they percieve there is value to it... who wants a single glossy high-quality A4 print at £100 to stick on the mantlepiece when all they really want is to share their photos on facebook to their 987 friends (including the family overseas who would never see that glossy print anyway).
So instead of issuing take-down notices all day for no money, instead sell people a stick with photos at the venue before they leave and let them do what they want with them. Sell 100 sticks at £20 each, that's 2 grand...how much do you get for those photos you can't take down fast enough from FB - nothing. And you can still sell that glossy A4 print for the handful of people who want one...
Just a random thought...I'm sure there's lots of other ways, but you will never ever win the copying game by trying to fight against it...
Last edited: