Watermark or NOT to Watermark Wedding Images

[BCordeiroPhotography]

Hello everyone i have a hard time with this should i watermark wedding images or should i leave the watermark out if i can please get some input on this thank you all.

 

[sscarmack]

I watermark proofs, nothing on final copies.

My watermark is my signature.

 

[MichaelHenson]

I think you're going to get some mixed responses on here. Some believe in it, some don't. From what I've heard/read, etc., watermarks can be removed if someone has the time/inclination so in terms of a "theft deterrent" they don't accomplish everything we would hope.

However, if it were me, I would still watermark images in as unobtrusive a manner as possible strictly for marketing purposes. The first thing I do when I see an image I like is to check for a watermark and then Google the photographer's name/business. In the world of social media marketing that we live in now, I think that not doing this is shooting yourself in the foot to an extent. People want information and access quickly and the 2-3 seconds it takes for them to backtrack a non-watermarked photo to you might be enough to keep them from doing it. Just IMO, of course.

Edit: And I would only watermark images that are going to be shared online...not the final image that the client is paying for.

 

[tirediron]

Again, exactly what Sean said. It used to be common for studios to have their information on the print, not any more. If I was providing cut-rate digital copies, maybe, but never on prints. I stamp the back, but that's it.

 

[BCordeiroPhotography]

ok i will also be creating a album for my client those images i will not put any watermarks but the files that i give on a cd/dvd for social media etc all of those can be watermarked is that correct

 

[sscarmack]

I don't mind a watermark, but it needs to be subtle and 'classy'. I hate big intrusive watermarks.

Thats why I like my signature, its like an artist signing his work. Its 'classy'.


Just MY opinion.

 

[BCordeiroPhotography]

my watermark is the icon picture i'M guessing that is to big and intrusive lol

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't mind a watermark, but it needs to be subtle and 'classy'. I hate big intrusive watermarks.

Thats why I like my signature, its like an artist signing his work. Its 'classy'.


Just MY opinion.

Sadly though one man's idea of "subtly and classy" is another man's "coyote morning".

Lol

 

[CameraClicker]

It's complicated.
If you visit a site like Shutterstock, everything is watermarked. They want you to see the image but not take it (at least, not without paying them for it). Their watermark covers a lot of the image without obscuring the image. Mostly it is a reminder to their target audience that they can't legally take an image and reproduce it without payment.
Facebook removes EXIF data, which they probably do as a favour to their members, but which is probably also illegal. Facebook and, to an even greater extent, Instagram are the sites most likely to prompt images being copied and displayed elsewhere. Instagram's terms say they can take your image and license it, leaving you with liability but no payment! If I were posting to either of those sites, I would use a watermark, possibly an intrusive watermark, even. Although they are your photos, if the bride/groom posts to Instagram, they are the ones the terms would apply to, so a watermark would be advertising for you, and they would get any resulting liability from the post, so a much more refined watermark might be appropriate.
Certainly anything the bride/groom, parents, guests, etc. paid for, should not be watermarked in the area expected to show when framed. Easily achieved if you control prints, harder if you just shoot and burn. Some put their name on the border, others stamp the back. Some sign with a pencil.
Anyone familiar with an editing program like GIMP or Photoshop can make a watermark disappear. By the time you have inhibited someone determined to remove the watermark, most of your image is covered and probably unappealing.
If you want to track theft, you can purchase invisible watermarks that even survive photocopying and similar mechanical transfer methods.

Should you watermark? It depends on your goals and paranoia.

 

[BCordeiroPhotography]

Ok thank you so much that helped me out a lot I will not watermark when the images are getting purchased from the family members I will not watermark it i will only watermark images of they are getting used for social media.

 

[KmH]

***** Register Your Copyrights *****
Registering Your Copyrights Using the eCO System | NatureScapes.Net | The Resource for Nature Photographers
Five Things You Can Do to Protect Your Online Images | Photo Attorney
Embedded Metadata Initiative
What's An Infringement Worth? | Photo Attorney
Help! I've Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney
Excuses, Excuses - for photo infringement

 

[paigew]

I don't watermark my wedding galleries since they are all inclusive. I do watermark for blog, social media

 

[BCordeiroPhotography]

Ok thank you Paigew

 

[minicoop1985]

I have used a client watermark before, but at the client's request. I generally don't watermark final anything unless it's just my own crap or it's "fine art" (less artsy, more fartsy) stuff that MAYBE someone MIGHT steal (doubtful). My watermark is simple and easy to clone/crop out, though... but I find it's a good example of simple, small, and classy. I SAID I THINK IT IS, NOT I KNOW IT IS. SHEESH. Easy, killer!

Morgan by longm1985, on Flickr