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

Has anyone else noticed that quite a lot of the people who say they use obtrusive watermarking also say it does them no good and their copyright is still breached, pics posted on FB etc?

Sort of makes you wonder if it's worth it...
 
Facebook really doesn't matter - watermarking stops commercial theft and as a result earns photographers extra income.
 
flossie said:
This says to me your business model is failing...
Click to expand...

I can't believe your saying that..

Pictures will be copied to facebook no matter what you put accross the middle.. I prefer if its in plain sight that they came from my website..and from that you get my business is failing?

How does that make my business a fail? I sell cartloads of pictures because i do two thing.. 1) I make sure I am the only photogrpaher at the events I go to and anyone with anything bigger than a pocket camera isnt allowed to photogrpah... 2) I make sure I am well advertised at the event..
Sales start to come in the day a gallery goes online and I can get odd sales years later for whatever reason..

How on earth are you stating my business model is failing? if its failing then great I hope it fails some more...

IF I dont put a dirty great watermark accross the middle they will take what they want without buying..

Seriously... I am failing by making money? hmm OK then :)
 
awp said:
Facebook really doesn't matter - watermarking stops commercial theft and as a result earns photographers extra income.
Click to expand...

So you don't think sales can be made to people for use on Facebook etc? Interesting... I always wondered what the sound of a missed opportunity was like... there's a potential one staring you right in the face...
 
Last edited:
awp said:
Facebook really doesn't matter - watermarking stops commercial theft and as a result earns photographers extra income.
Click to expand...

Facebook matters to me when the people I want to buy pictures can just grab them off facebook .. every pic I put online thats for sale has a dirty great big bright greeen watermark accross the middle.. and when facebook users put them on there page everyone can see plain and clear where they got them from...

I know they are going to take them and I aint going to fight it.. But I want it plain and clear where they got them and the only way anyones getting a clean pic is by paying :)
 
flossie said:
So you don't think sales can be made to people for use on Facebook etc? Interesting... I always wondered what the sound of a missed opportunity was like... there's a potential one staring you right in the face...
Click to expand...

Not for the work I do. I really don't care about Joe Public that much.
 
awp said:
Not for the work I do. I really don't care about Joe Public that much.
Click to expand...

But your addressing a whole range of photogrpahers who have different possible customers and teling them all that facebook doesnt matter.. you probably should ahve said.. to you :)
 
phil8139 said:
hmmmm is that popcorn i smell :lol:
Click to expand...

yep...

popcorn.gif
 
Last edited:
Whats the standard facebook size image though - about 600 pixels?
People will just take low res pictures to stick on their facebook, even with watermarks.
 
KIPAX said:
How does that make my business a fail? I sell cartloads of pictures because i do two thing.. 1) I make sure I am the only photogrpaher at the events I go to and anyone with anything bigger than a pocket camera isnt allowed to photogrpah... 2) I make sure I am well advertised at the event..
Sales start to come in the day a gallery goes online and I can get odd sales years later for whatever reason..

How on earth are you stating my business model is failing? if its failing then great I hope it fails some more...

IF I dont put a dirty great watermark accross the middle they will take what they want without buying..

Seriously... I am failing by making money? hmm OK then :)
Click to expand...

I'm really happy you are doing well and are successful, I said its "failing" because vast numbers of people who have paid you nothing are using your photographs. You need to find a way to get even a small amount of money from those people, and then multiply it out. That's what's failing - people are using your images, regardless of watermarks, and you are getting nothing for it.

Anyway, how do you stop anyone from taking good photographs at your events? I'm genuinely puzzled. Do you personally stop & search everyone, or employ security guards and spotters... then what happens in the future when cameras keep getting smaller and more powerful (e.g. mirrorless, backside sensors, etc)... you need to sell the fact you can take better pictures than other people, not that fact you have exclusivity!


As I'm having an evening for random buisness ideas...assuming you must have some kind of arrangement with the event organisers (which you'd have to if you have any kind of hold on who can photograph) - so just plucking some kind of numbers out of my arse, lets say you make £2k profit on photos (...really?!) at an event with 1000 spectactors, you could give your photos away (electronically) if those people paid £2 extra on their ticket price and all walked away with "free" photographs. You'd still make the same, and could still make money on a handful of prints, and the promotor has an added value to their event. Now I know Promotors don't think along those lines, but its just a random idea...
 
I can sort of see what Richard is getting at, but think he a little bit deluded.

I think he is saying that we should sell facebook size photos a VERY low prices to get some income from those that want to use our images on FB, but I'm afraid that even if the price was 5 pence each, the thefts are thefts and would steal them anyway.

Your all so missing the point of print sales 'V' electronic images, your presuming that people want ONE copy of an image, and if so your idea of the price of the photo added to the ticket price could make sense, but they don't want ONE copy, I know Tony like myself shoots junior sports event, were mum & dad want a copy as do both sets of grandparents so that's 3 copies, if the parent are spilt up were up to 4 photos. Try adding the price of 4 photographs on every ticket and that cheap ticket just got very expensive.

how do you stop anyone from taking good photographs at your events

Yes it's hard to stop the camera phone or point and shoot, but you can stop access to certain areas of an event. For example in track and field athletics joe public CAN NOT get on to the in-field, so that's no shot-putt, javelin, hammer, discus.

I've just seen some triathlon shots and the swim photographs were taken from in the pool, underwater shots with the photographer using diving equipment to say under water during the event, try doing that on an iPhone
 
I don't really like watermarks & don't watermark most of my stuff as it does detract from the overall presentation.

The exception to this is my American football photos. I post between 400 & 700 shots from every game on my website (800 px 72dpi - there are some 25,000 photos from 2 seasons o there). I soon found hundreds appearing all over Facebook.

I now watermark them all. It doesn't stop anyone stealing them, I ask anyone who wants a copy to add a link to my website with each shot on their Facebook pages, some do, some don't. Watermarks just let people know I took the shots. It's a losing battle trying to prevent people downloading stuff for free.

I make a small amount from players who want high res copies either digitally or in prints, but then I don't do it to make money.
 
I think it depends on what type of photography you do and why you put them on the web.

For me its to show off my work to potential wedding clients. I only put a small number of low res files online and actually give clients low res versions to share on Facebook etc. with my name under the image. Most people leave it on and people can see who took the image if its not on my site. My web images are big enough to get a reasonable 6x4 print from, but the clients pay for all the images when I do the job and they are of little interest to other people.

I still limit the number of images I show this way though.

I am probably going to start posting other work online soon and the watermark question is one I have been asking myself. I think I will end up putting it right across the image in that case as I will be selling the images themselves rather than my services. I know it won't stop someone determined and they might still end up on Facebook, but it seems if I don't do it the images will just get pinched and used without permission all the more.
 
I agree with above, your NEVER going to stop someone ripping one of your own photos from either your own website, flickr or alike if the people want it. There are ways you can make it more difficult like diasbling the right mouse button through a plugin making it harder for the casual internet user to download but at the end of the day its pretty impossible to protect images from download.

Watermarks do help in my opinion but its finding a balance between watermarking enough to protect the image and the photographer and watermarking little enough as to not spoil the presentation of the image thus deterring anyone from using your services.

I really think it depends what type of photos you take, sports are much more likely the be taken from the average facebook user in my opinion as opposed to personal portraits or weddings therefore a bigger blatent watermark is probabaly more acceptable. Ive just posted a link onto my personal facebook page with a direct link to my flickr set which covered a martial arts event i shot last weekend and the amount of people who have asked me for copies of pictures of them fighting is amazing, i fully expect to see these images as facebook profile pics soon even if i dont sell them a copy!! What can i do about it.......b****r all but preserve my reputation with a watermark!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top