which watermark do you prefer

A

astraman1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
328
Name
nick
Edit My Images
Yes
well ive decided to watermark images i upload to the web so i decided to design myself a watermark i can just put on any photo i decide to upload

im after some opinions as to which you think looks best i have put two designs on a picture if you could let me know your opinions i havent decided on final size yet but let me know if you prefer the colourless one or the coloured one

thanks


http://www.flickr.com/photos/73864252@N04/7843775024/ http://www.flickr.com/people/73864252@N04/
 
The clear one is a lot less intrusive on the image.
 
The logo looks a lot like one used in the computer game "Portal" which was also used for their promotional work too. Not sure if they have copyright to it and not sure how the law works on this but might be worth checking it out just in case.

Google Aperture Science.

Btw, I prefer the one on the right. I find the one on the left far too invisible.
 
The one I use is transparent, can't remember how to do it though as I've got a script thingy in Photoshop that does it for me.

TBH, I only bother using it for the urbex stuff on my website as there have been instances of the press using urbex photos and not bothering to pay or credit accordingly. For most other things, I couldn't give two hoots about putting a copyright on!
 
SThornton said:
The logo looks a lot like one used in the computer game "Portal" which was also used for their promotional work too. Not sure if they have copyright to it and not sure how the law works on this but might be worth checking it out just in case.

Google Aperture Science.

Btw, I prefer the one on the right. I find the one on the left far too invisible.
Click to expand...

just checked it out and its diffrent to the one i have made theres doesnt have the circle round the outside and theres has a section missing for the letter a to take its place

but thanks for pointing it out and thanks for the opinions so far
 
It may not be exactly the same as Aperture Science's one but I am sure I have seen ones identical to yours somewhere or maybe with a few more 'blades'. I doubt having a few blades less would get you out of any copyright infringement suites though.

I remember some time ago someone had a sign made very similar to the Harrods one but his was called Harolds. Same colour, similar font etc and he was made to stop using it for breach of copyright.

I think you need to make it a bit more unique.
 
Always felt watermarks shouldn't really affect the picture too much but let people know who owns the picture so with that in mind out of the two the one on the left for me
 
Tbh neither. The concept of either a lens or an aperture ring has been done by so many people that it's a bit cliched now.

Spend a week or so coming up with something original and , more importantly, personal to you.
 
Ploddles said:
It may not be exactly the same as Aperture Science's one but I am sure I have seen ones identical to yours somewhere or maybe with a few more 'blades'. I doubt having a few blades less would get you out of any copyright infringement suites though.

I remember some time ago someone had a sign made very similar to the Harrods one but his was called Harolds. Same colour, similar font etc and he was made to stop using it for breach of copyright.

I think you need to make it a bit more unique.
Click to expand...

It's breach of trademark rather than copyright and certain criteria have to be fulfilled before it's considered passing off.
 
Ploddles said:
It may not be exactly the same as Aperture Science's one but I am sure I have seen ones identical to yours somewhere or maybe with a few more 'blades'. I doubt having a few blades less would get you out of any copyright infringement suites though.

I remember some time ago someone had a sign made very similar to the Harrods one but his was called Harolds. Same colour, similar font etc and he was made to stop using it for breach of copyright.

I think you need to make it a bit more unique.
Click to expand...

Really! Eh?
You do realise how long blade diaphragms have been in existence?
Well for your benefit a lot longer than the game portal, even the first version, and a lot longer than digital cameras, and roll film cameras, in fact there is a debate about who actually created the first adjustable blade diaphragm but they started appearing in the late 1800s
So for one to draw, create the depiction of a blade diaphragm iris whatever shape or orientation should be trouble free
 
thanks for all the comments so far its all turning out alot more intresting than i was expecting lol

im also working on a couple more designs too so it may be changing yet ive modified the one above and im also working on another design too :)
 
DemiLion said:
It's breach of trademark rather than copyright and certain criteria have to be fulfilled before it's considered passing off.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is what I meant. Brain thinking one thing, fingers typing another. Should have read it back before hitting the post button. Oops.
 
Simon photo said:
Really! Eh?
You do realise how long blade diaphragms have been in existence?
Well for your benefit a lot longer than the game portal, even the first version, and a lot longer than digital cameras, and roll film cameras, in fact there is a debate about who actually created the first adjustable blade diaphragm but they started appearing in the late 1800s
So for one to draw, create the depiction of a blade diaphragm iris whatever shape or orientation should be trouble free
Click to expand...

A bit condescending there!

As DemiLion pointed out, I meant to say trademark not copyright.

However, just because something has been in existence for a while doesn't mean that an artistic depiction of that can't be trademarked.

Aperture blades may well have been around since the 1800s but that is about as relevant as saying chickens lay eggs.

Correct me if I am wrong but mountains have been around for a little longer than aperture blades. There are a few different trademarks about that depict mountains but each one is unique and can be registered as a trademark.

Or another example, the letter M has been around a while now. Didn't stop McDonald's trademarking it's usage in their particular form.

All I am saying is that the OP has to be careful that his watermark doesn't depict a trademark that is registered to someone else. His depiction has to be unique in some way and I am pretty sure I have seen an identical one in use before.
 
chickens ...eggcellent point :) for me it's similar to using an egg based logo. it's not proprietary. Valve didn't come up with the iris design, only its use for their logo and there is a valid case surely that for photographic means this is representative
also they are in a different industry. this gives credence that they are not trying to imitate or affect anyone else's business
also MacDonalds are toerags, remember the case of the McCurry in india? sods. glad they lost that one.
so steer clear of exact design infringement and it should be okay. just don't call yourself Gordon Freeman Photography or something :P unless it's actually your real name!
just my tuppence :)

p.s
LOGO design.
I like the 2nd one but without the blacked out centre, that should be different but not completely opaque. then put a small 50% trans (c) in the middle :)
also take the lettering of your name and wrap it all the way around the logo at 50% transparency, so it's readable but not completely distracting, then use the whole thing across the middle 30% of the photo or if you're showcasing, smaller and less transparent where it's less destructive to the image...
 
Last edited:
thanks for the ideas matt hadnt thought of that the center is not blacked out you can see through it just the background is dark so it doesnt show up to well will play around with your ideas too and incorparate them into the design im gonna be busy for a while lol
 
Whatever guys, was just pointing something out. And like i said, its nothing to worry about.
I can't stand watermarked images, or TOAP and half the time your thinking to yourself, why waterMark that? Who would want to steal that?
(this comment is not in relation to any images in this thread or related images by the way)
And as amateur photographers, who put up their images in useable resolution for the world to see, and don't normally charge for their work, shouldn't get all bent out of shape when they do get robbed.
Look at it this way, its better for an amateur photographers work to be robbed than the work of someone who has to try and make a living from it.
 
definitely neither in my opinion. They just look outdated and chiched.
 
Simon photo said:
Whatever guys, was just pointing something out. And like i said, its nothing to worry about.
I can't stand watermarked images, or TOAP and half the time your thinking to yourself, why waterMark that? Who would want to steal that?
(this comment is not in relation to any images in this thread or related images by the way)
And as amateur photographers, who put up their images in useable resolution for the world to see, and don't normally charge for their work, shouldn't get all bent out of shape when they do get robbed.
Look at it this way, its better for an amateur photographers work to be robbed than the work of someone who has to try and make a living from it.
Click to expand...

it would be better for no photographers images to be stolen

why is it any better to steal a amateurs work than someone who does it for a living just because the amatuer is not being payed doesnt make it anymore right todo
 
The amateur isn't relying on their images to put food on the table, roof over heads, bills paid and so on.
The amateur who shoots purely for pleasure as a hobby and if they sell a couple of prints then yay! Goes towards new kit or whatever.
I agree that any theft of creative or intellectual property is wrong but as an amateur myself, what am will i lose through it? Nothing. If anything i would take it as a compliment that someone thinks my stuff is good enough to want!
 
I prefer the one on the left.
But just wondered if it might look better with the text to the left/right of the circle, rather than below.
May work better, but entirely up to you...
 
Simon photo said:
How!? How does that not make sense to you? Like i said, the hobbyist has probably already got a full time job, the hobbyist isn't relying on income from their images to survive, its mostly for ***** and giggles so what's the big deal.
Click to expand...

Because any decent working photographer approaches copyright infringement as par for the course. They either take measures to counter it or treat it as another revenue source. Photographs are a commodity and to be viewed as such.

Amateurs are far more likely to take infringement as an affront to them personally.

Regardless of the above, it doesn't matter who an image gets nicked from. It's still equally wrong.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
The one I use is transparent, can't remember how to do it though as I've got a script thingy in Photoshop that does it for me.
Click to expand...

In Elements.

Open image.

Select Text Tool. Select pt size at top of screen.

Click on image. Hold down ALT and type 0169 on numerical pad(not numbers across top of keyboard). This gives copyright symbol. Type name or whatever.

Click on text thumbnail in layers palette.

Select Layer, Layer Style, Style Settings.

Select Bevel and type 16 into size box, select OK.

Click on drop down in layers palette and select Screen. Writing goes transparent.

Select Move Tool and resize and position as required.

Use Opacity in Layers palette to fine tune how prominent watermark is.
 
Last edited:
I watermark some of my images if they have semi-commercial possibilities.
for fight photos they always get nicked for facebook profile pics
but that's par for the course, but if the event and my details are across the middle, it's advertising :) and if they want a nicer print...I can help :)
 
Simon photo said:
The amateur isn't relying on their images to put food on the table, roof over heads, bills paid and so on.
The amateur who shoots purely for pleasure as a hobby and if they sell a couple of prints then yay! Goes towards new kit or whatever.
I agree that any theft of creative or intellectual property is wrong but as an amateur myself, what am will i lose through it? Nothing. If anything i would take it as a compliment that someone thinks my stuff is good enough to want!
Click to expand...

So in your perfect world amateurs would have their images stolen and be glad of the 'exposure' and then no-one needs to buy images from Pro's any more? All image theft, and all people spreading the story that it's OK to work for nothing if you're only an amateur, are what devalues the industry.
 
Simon photo said:
How!? How does that not make sense to you? Like i said, the hobbyist has probably already got a full time job, the hobbyist isn't relying on income from their images to survive, its mostly for ***** and giggles so what's the big deal.
Click to expand...

So it's OK to steal from someone as long as the victim can afford it? Cool - I'm off to Mayfair with a crowbar and a swag bag ;)
 
astraman1 said:
ok been done matts idea and ive also modified it to change it to something diffrent i can also wrap my name around this one the opacity is still to high but its so you can see clearly not finished my other design yet what do you think to these


http://www.flickr.com/photos/73864252@N04/7859157092/ http://www.flickr.com/people/73864252@N04/
Click to expand...

not quite what I had in mind but I like it (probs more readable tbh)
the round one form me and also doesn't draw the eye too much away from the focal point of the picture:thumbs:
 
thanks for the opinions i will reduce the opacity abit more and shrink it down abit more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top