Watermarks or not for Flickr?

EMA747

EMA747

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I always have this nagging at the back of my mind saying put watermarks on images uploaded to Flickr so I do that. Just a smallish one in the centre. I do this to stop people copying the images for use elsewhere. The thing is I don't currently make money from my images so it's not like I need to protect them like say an event tog does.
I see some pros websites and flickr streams that have watermarks and some that don't.

What do you guys do?
 
I dont make money from my pictures, but if i was paid a small amount for every picture I had taken/stolen off flicker, i would now own a much better camera than i do.

My advice would be to watermark your image, but a visable one and a digital one.

as you say, you dont make money from your pictures, but if you were offered money for the use of one, i'm sure you would be happy to take it.
 
Please not in the centre of an image as this can ruin an image and I and many other people will certainly never fave or comment an intrusively watermarked image.
 
I nearly always put a transparent watermark on my stuff on flickr, although it's primarily because I upload the same photos to my main website. Sure it's not foolproof, but I only upload smallish pics anyway.

5114379501_793440c619_b.jpg
 
I totally understand what people are trying to accomplish by visibly watermarking their images, but I admit that some of them are incredibly intrusive and spoil the image. If the aim of hosting it somewhere like Flickr was to 'show off' an image, why totally spoil it with a visible watermark?

On the opposite side of the scale are those images with less visible watermarks, in corners, etc and I often find myself thinking, 'Why did they bother? You could remove that so easily.' :whistling: (Not that I would, or ever had, I hasten to add.)

I've only just started uploading stuff to the likes of Flickr or Photobucket and haven't been watermarking anything. Nor does my wife with the more social, 'snap-shots' she posts on Facebook. But I don't suppose anyone wants to pinch my, or her, shots. :lol:

If I ever reached the standard whereby my images could generate £££ I dare say I'd try anything and everything to protect them. I'd probably not post them on Flickr for starters. :D
 
Last edited:
it doesnt matter that youre not making money from your images..

what if a company comes along and saves off your unwatermarked image and then uses it for an advertising campaign without your knowledge for example..
 
Just to add that if you have a pro account make sure you regularly check the activity to see where all the referrals are coming from. "Unknown Source" hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I don't watermark but then I don't put my best pics on there either.
 
Ignorance is bliss?

In all seriousness, what would be your objection to the scenario you mention? The fact they're using your images without rewarding you? Or the possibility that it's advertising something you don't agree with?

If I'm not bothered about the money and it's being used to advertise something that I don't object to, then I'd probably be proud of the fact and tell all my family and friends. (And then sue them for some money. :D)
 
Sponge said:
Ignorance is bliss?

In all seriousness, what would be your objection to the scenario you mention? The fact they're using your images without rewarding you? Or the possibility that it's advertising something you don't agree with?

If I'm not bothered about the money and it's being used to advertise something that I don't object to, then I'd probably be proud of the fact and tell all my family and friends. (And then sue them for some money. :D)
Click to expand...

where do i start..

yes you have the money and the potential subject matter but you also have things like model rights to worry about if it contained an identifiable person.

you could also argue that its taking work from a photographer who makes their money from advertising work. thats a bit of a can of worms on here though..
 
I don't watermark images I upload to FlickR. 2 reasons. #1, I only use it as a host so I can post a few pics to sites such as TP and #2, since it's only a host for me, all the pics are only visible to me.

IF I was worried about people ripping off the images, I simply wouldn't post them. Even the biggest, most intrusive watermark can be cloned/healed out - if someone wants something, they'll take it - anti theft measures will only slow the process down, not stop it.
 
+1 on what Nod says! Couldn't have put it better myself.
 
neil_g said:
you could also argue that its taking work from a photographer who makes their money from advertising work. thats a bit of a can of worms on here though..
Click to expand...


Yes, I've only been a member a short while and I've already discovered that through my forum browsing. :thumbs:
 
A lot of photographers have made more money from having a photo "stolen" than selling it normally.

Once someone has "stolen" an image a photographer can basically invoice them for whatever they like within reason, whereas a pre agreed price can be negotiated freely by both parties.
 
Watermarks might well be editable out, but by having them on there you are asserting in a very clear way who the image belongs to.

Nobody can say that they didn't know...

Cast adrift into a search engines image cache, your image could belong to anyone.
 
boliston said:
A lot of photographers have made more money from having a photo "stolen" than selling it normally.

Once someone has "stolen" an image a photographer can basically invoice them for whatever they like within reason, whereas a pre agreed price can be negotiated freely by both parties.
Click to expand...

Sending an invoice does not guarantee payment :shrug: Even if someone was taken to court for payment, then surely the owner of the image would have to prove where and how he has lost out financially? .... Not as easy as it sounds :thinking:
 
If you post images on Flickr for public viewing then I presume it's because you want people to view them. If you put a visible watermark across the middle large enough to spoil the look of the image and which spoils the aesthetic viewing experience most and including me will not bother to look at any more and move on.

So the question is do you want maximum viewing of your images and take a small risk someone may copy a low res web image or do you want them safe.

If the first lose your paranoia , if the second don't post them on the world wide web. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top