Copyrighting Photos

[Neuner]

- but if it ever became an issue, how would you demonstrate its yours, especially if you're posting raw information online?

I agree. This can be hard to prove and costly if it went too far.

The other good point was that the images don't necessarily have to be of printable quality, but good enough for internet / electronic media usage. If the image is on your screen, it's download-able and I would think that anyone who plans on using the images for electronic media is tech savy enough to understand how to do this. I think the watermark is the best option and I've seen some light ones that do not significantly distract from the overall image.

I've already had some of my artwork taken from a personal website and even though it's been some time I still have seen it used to this day. Wish I had put a watermark on it.

 

[bdh1974]

I to have started using watermarks. Some said to me they had trouble printing a photo off my site, I said if you want you can buy a decent photo like everyone else. The person was someone I have known for a while, so sarcasm was fine.

But now I have an action setup in photoshop to batch my images. I first setup a Pattern with name, etc, as per example below. Action creates a new layer, add a fill with pattern, change to overlay & opacity to 50-60%, still makes it fine to view but comes out dodgy when you try & print. On the lighter coloured area it shows up nicely to view it. Not as great in the darks.

But atleast you dont have this big name across the centre that detracts from the view.

Cheers
Brad.

 

[PatriK-b]

Watermarking is certainly the only way of efficiently preventing people to use your pictures, but, at least for me, it also prevents people watching them.

The one from keith204 is a nice shoot, but the watermark is just hiding drivers' faces, points where your eyes are naturally looking to.
On bdh1974's one, there is more to read than to look. The first thing I did, watching it, was trying to reconstruct the copyright text...
When browsing such pictures, I stop after 2 or 3, even if they are very nice.

I understand if you shoot for business, it is certainly different as if you do it for hobby.

 

[jstuedle]

Don't forget, most of us "pro's" were once hobby shooters. And many hobbyists get THE shot every once in a while and want to sell it. A good hobby shooter should still protect there copyrights as they might be in a position to sell a shot every now and again. Remember the difference between amateur and pro is only selling your work. Many a pro I know can't hold a candle to many hobbyists, but are much better at marketing.

 

[keith204]

...The one from keith204 is a nice shoot, but the watermark is just hiding drivers' faces, points where your eyes are naturally looking to....

I agree.. thanks for the input. I really need to change it to something more like bdh1974's... it isn't as obnoxious as my current one.

And yes, I totally agree that watermarking is probably the most effective way of stopping people from stealing your photos.

 

[skieur]

Most photographers do not need to get paranoid about copyrighting their photos.

The reality is that a lot of other photographers look at an image and feel that they could take a better photo of the subject anyway. Photographers also tend to develop a style that makes their work easy to identify. I tend to see the largest watermark and copyright notices on some of the poorest quality images.

The exception tends to be sports photography and images used on web sites. One photographer regularly does an internet search and if he finds one of his images where it does not belong, he sends out an invoice for double his normal price with a time limit. If it is not paid within the time, he files in small claims court. It is usually paid without going to court.
Another photographer takes a different approach. He sells his "invoices" related to copyright infringement to a collection agency.

skieur

 

[Jon, The Elder]

I pretty much agree with Keith204 on this.

We shoot horses/riders for money. The watermark just discourages the little cheaters from the 'refrigerator' prints.

It keeps honest people honest.

There is a LOT of rhetoric about laws and conventions...Yada,Yada,Yada. It really boils down to what you are trying to do with your work. Talk about suing and such is mostly just that....talk.

Here is a typical watermark for my site: http://www.pbase.com/jpferguson/image/80809633

 

[bdh1974]

Totally agree with Jon, The Elder, it keeps honest people honest. You are always going to get people that will print it no matter what & this cant be avoided.

But hopefully it will stop people wrongly using them on websites.

I know mine has a bit of text in it, but it does stop people from cropping the image to something smaller. What I am trying to achieve, is to have the best image I can, with the smallest file size. Now I get less questions like, how will it look printed, oh it is a bit pixelated how do I know it is a good shot, etc.

 

[pborgbarthet]

WOW! All this info. Thanks a lot guys. I think I like the watermark idea best

 

[keith204]

Watermarking is certainly the only way of efficiently preventing people to use your pictures, but, at least for me, it also prevents people watching them.

The one from keith204 is a nice shoot, but the watermark is just hiding drivers' faces, points where your eyes are naturally looking to.
On bdh1974's one, there is more to read than to look. The first thing I did, watching it, was trying to reconstruct the copyright text...
When browsing such pictures, I stop after 2 or 3, even if they are very nice.

I understand if you shoot for business, it is certainly different as if you do it for hobby.

Thanks for the advice about the watermark being in the middle of the subject. Here is what I came up with. Black tranparent text and white, pretty faint, but at least one should show up faintly in any circumstances. It looks simple and isn't really distracting in my opinion.