Watermarks/company names/copyright

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I notice many people put their photographs on Flickr and on here with their names or company names actually on the photograph, I'm wondering why this is done. For company names then I assume it is for advertising purposes but are there other reasons why it is done? Does it protect copyright and protect you from having your images used elsewhere without your permission? Or is it not the case that the very fact you placed a picture on Flickr not mean you give up your copyright?

I don't suppose I've ever taken a photograph that someone else could make money out of but I do wonder if it's been done without my knowledge and would me putting my name and the copyright symbol on prevent that from happening or give me a legal case if it did?
 
ShinySideUp said:
I notice many people put their photographs on Flickr and on here with their names or company names actually on the photograph, I'm wondering why this is done. For company names then I assume it is for advertising purposes but are there other reasons why it is done? Does it protect copyright and protect you from having your images used elsewhere without your permission? Or is it not the case that the very fact you placed a picture on Flickr not mean you give up your copyright?

I don't suppose I've ever taken a photograph that someone else could make money out of but I do wonder if it's been done without my knowledge and would me putting my name and the copyright symbol on prevent that from happening or give me a legal case if it did?
Click to expand...

Usually to protect the images from being used and printed, i put a logo on my images on my website but when i shared my link on this forum got a lot of criticism,a lot of people ask why i put a copyright statement on there.

but when i do upload images to the web i always upload them for screen so small something like 800x800px so they are useless for print as with software these days there is always a way of getting the image off the web regardless and also being able to remove logos etc if you know what you are doing
 
Watermarks are generally used for self promotion and image rights protection. Adding a watermark won't stop your image being used by someone (unless very intrusive). But if someone does infringe your copyright (your automatic legally right* once you take the image) and they crop out or otherwise remove the watermark it would strength your position and possibly increase damages e.g. they've infringed with intent as they've tinkered with the image.

*Under some circumstances copyright isn't the photographers for example if its in your employment contract and for other reasons.

.edit. crossed posted with Robert's reply.
 
Sharky said:
But if someone does infringe your copyright (your automatic legally right* once you take the image) and they crop out or otherwise remove the watermark it would strength your position and possibly increase damages
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Remedies (not damages) in a civil case are to right a wrong. i.e. to pay you what you should have received if the transaction was carried out properly. A civil case is not punishment for the offender.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Unlikely. Remedies (not damages) in a civil case are to right a wrong. i.e. to pay you what you should have received if the transaction was carried out properly. A civil case is not punishment for the offender.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up :)
 
I put a small copyright symbol and my web address on the images I upload. When I first started taking photography seriously I had an image that got shared on tumblr (and pinterest I believe) thousands of times, but any links back to the original photographer were lost somewhere in the sharing frenzy. As I result I decided to add my details to future images.

Sadly I don't think any of my subsequent work has received quite so much attention, and it's not as if I get to spend any time updating my website anyway. One day though....
 
robphotographer said:
but when i do upload images to the web i always upload them for screen so small something like 800x800px so they are useless for print
Click to expand...

are you serious? try printing one out.. make a nice 7x5 print that.. could be printed in a newspaper at that size as well...
 
I can understand why companies or people who use photography as their main source of income watermark their images

But some people watermark images that aren't that great and it just makes them look worse, especially if they are just hobbyists, sorry if that sounds "elitist" but I struggle to see the point of the regular joe watermarking his images
 
Keltaris said:
sorry if that sounds "elitist" but I struggle to see the point of the regular joe watermarking his images
Click to expand...

People watermark images to try to stop other people using them without permission. It doesn't matter if the owner is amateur or professional, the intent is the same.

I'm sure 'regular Joe' doesn't want people infringing his images any more than 'professional Peter' does.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I just include a very small name as an indication that I took the image ….. that's all - I am sure if people want to use or copy an image they are clever enough to get rid of such indications without leaving a trace.

Presumably they can also strip out all the EXIF data if they think that the image is worthwhile using

Azure_male.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just say put a logo there if you want regardless of what people think. Your always going to get criticism on this forum for it regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I watermark all my urbex photographs as the press used to have a nasty habit of using urbex photos from the web without asking permission and quite often without attribution. There were quite a few cases a while back, with several papers hiding behind 'public interest' as their justification. I work on the basis that if this happened to me, then at least I would get some publicity if my images were watermarked, or have a real go at them if they removed or obliterated the watermark. So far so good - I've always been approached for usage, and to the best of my knowledge, none have been used.
Most other stuff I post on the web I don't really care about and is neither newsworthy or of any commercial value.


Staff Edit: removed website links from post, they are in signature
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does this statement help?
having a copyright notice cut out means you can't argue you didn't know.

Damages are not available if, at the time of the infringement, the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work. Additional damages may be available but only in exceptional circumstances, (considering the flagrancy of the infringement and the benefit accruing by reason of the infringement to the defendant). The civil courts, in response to growing copyright piracy and only in the case of very serious breaches, have also been prepared to grant to copyright owners what in practice are private search warrants to track down the sources for bootleg operations.
Certain criminal offences have also been created in relation to copyright (with penalties including imprisonment, fines and confiscation of copyright material and the equipment used to produce it). These are intended to catch copying on an industrial scale for commercial gain, especially international piracy of copyright material (bootleg videos and the like).
 
I "never" put a copyright notice on my pictures!
But that's because I get monkeys to take all my pictures. And you can't copyright them if an animal took the picture.
Which p*sses off my monkies I can tell you!
 
Last edited:
Peter69 said:
Damages are not available if, at the time of the infringement, the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work. Additional damages may be available but only in exceptional circumstances, (considering the flagrancy of the infringement and the benefit accruing by reason of the infringement to the defendant). The civil courts, in response to growing copyright piracy and only in the case of very serious breaches, have also been prepared to grant to copyright owners what in practice are private search warrants to track down the sources for bootleg operations.
Certain criminal offences have also been created in relation to copyright (with penalties including imprisonment, fines and confiscation of copyright material and the equipment used to produce it). These are intended to catch copying on an industrial scale for commercial gain, especially international piracy of copyright material (bootleg videos and the like).
Click to expand...

Sorry but thats cobblers (or at least not UK relevant it looks murrican to me)- ignorance is not a defence, and its the infringers duty to take all reasonable steps to ascertain who holds the copyright.
 
big soft moose said:
Sorry but thats cobblers (or at least not UK relevant it looks murrican to me)- ignorance is not a defence, and its the infringers duty to take all reasonable steps to ascertain who holds the copyright.
Click to expand...

It is an extract from a UK site discussing copyright.
If it was from the US the penalties are much higher.
 
UK copyright law changed this year causing outrage and making headlines in June. Keep up.
 
boliston said:
There is generally an inverse relationship between the boldness of the watermark and the quality of the photo :D
Click to expand...
Not always true, but made me laugh!

Watermarking sometimes has valid commercial purpose, but in these digital days is often used as a vanity device by people pretending to be professional.
 
Last edited:
Only difference a watermark makes to me is if a photo has a massive watermark i dont bother looking at the photo, they really bug me. Best to just upload limited size copies to the internet, if someone wants to nick it they will and nothing will stop them.
 
robj20 said:
Only difference a watermark makes to me is if a photo has a massive watermark i dont bother looking at the photo, they really bug me. Best to just upload limited size copies to the internet, if someone wants to nick it they will and nothing will stop them.
Click to expand...

But if they want to print it out or use it in a newspaper... ? watermark accross the middle stops them... not all pictures are portfolios.. I ahve half a million watermarked pics on the interrnet.. anyone wants to publish or print mine then they pay.. :)
 
From what i can gather watermarks are pretty simple to remove. Making a 600px image bigger isn't.
 
robj20 said:
From what i can gather watermarks are pretty simple to remove. Making a 600px image bigger isn't.
Click to expand...


wrong on both counts .. not easy to remove mine and a 600px image will make a loverly 6x4 print no problem.. plus I have seen smaller used in newspapers...
 
I think there are two ways to deal, either Like Tony and put a great big watermark to prevent usage unpaid. Or accept that stuff will get ripped off and only put work thats already been paid for online
 
paid for
https://www.facebook.com/tony.kipax...23039752401.1073741882.100003241342371&type=3

not paid for
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?album=FOOTBALL_u18/3423

that watermark would take some removing.. YES people still steal them and use them wiht the ugly watermark.... but some buy them... if i uploaded them all as A then I would go out of business... so uploading without watermark is a stupid suggestion for me.. might be a good suggestion for others... but please dont put it foward as they way everyone should do it :)
 
Peter69 said:
It is an extract from a UK site discussing copyright.
.
Click to expand...

As Kipax says its still wrong - what you are thinking of is the ophan images thing ie works where the owner cannot be found "after a diligent search made in accordance with the regulations" (Enterprise and regulatory reform act 2013)

However an image posted on line without meta data is not necesarily an 'orphan work' and certainly ignorance of who took it is not sufficient to demonstrate that you have no reasonable way of finding out who did

"Owners of photographs posted online will not lose control of their copyright under changes outlined in the Act," said an Intellectual Property Office spokesperson. "Nor do the changes mean anyone can use a copyright work without permission or free of charge. If someone copies a photo posted online they still need the permission from the rights holder of the photo to do so. If they don't have this permission they will have to apply for and buy an orphan works licence."
Click to expand...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/30/orphan-works-copyright

this line of your quote is especially cobblers

Damages are not available if, at the time of the infringement, the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work
Click to expand...
because

a) The 'defendant' would always have reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the work as nearly all photos are copyright to someone (unless it were explicitly stated otherwise on the source page - in which case watermarking would be irrelevant) and

b) Whether damages are available would be determined by a court on a case by case basis
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top