Confused about watermarks

CaptainNapalm

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
796
Reaction score
143
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Many folks on here emphasize the importance of placing watermarks on their photos if posting them online. I always assumed the reason for these marks was for name advertising purposes but it seems like everyone describes the main purpose for using them is for protection purposes. People are using them so that their work can’t be stolen and used as someone else’s. Okay great idea, but what I don’t understand is how these tiny little marks placed on the bottom right corner would prevent image theft? All watermarks I see, be it on here or other places online, are tiny little marks on the corners of images which can easily be spot-healed off with basic programs like PSE or similar. The photo can also be cropped minimally to get rid of the mark as well. And when I see people put marks that would actually seem half-effective for theft purposes they get slandered that their watermarks are much too intrusive and take away from the image. Maybe I’m missing something but can someone explain to me how a slight and often transparent marking at the corner of an image will prove effective against image theft? I’ve been curious about this for a while and would love to hear your input.
 
Off-topic: Please consider using the regular-size font. These old eyes really can't read the small type very well anymore. ;)

On-topic: You are correct; small watermarks cannot prevent image theft. Nor medium-size ones. Sometimes even the large, across the middle watermarks, if someone really has the PS skills and the desire to steal your photo.

I use a watermark for two reasons:
1. Primarily, it's "advertisement." I'm not a professional, and so "advertisement" may not really be the right term, but I do like to put my name out there. If someone sees my photo, say on a mutual friend's FB page, I want them to be able to see who it took it.

2. Our scouts used to have to bring all their stuff for summer camp in a lockable luggage trunk; the trunk had to have TWO keys--one for the scout and the other for the scoutmaster (so that when the scout inevitably LOST the key, there would be an extra). Could other scouts break in to the lockers and steal stuff? Absolutely. But it didn't happen that often, because now you had to really WANT to steal, not just be seized by the temptation of the moment. I always loved what our Scoutmaster said about this rule--"it's to KEEP Honest Scouts honest."

And that's the secondary reason I watermark--to keep honest photographers and internet browsers honest. It won't keep anyone from stealing my photo if they want to (although given the quality of my photos, it's not a really big concern of mine), but it DOES at least make it easy for HONEST people to see who the picture belongs to and give me credit for it.

72ppi resolution does a lot more to prevent any *significant* theft, imo. Sure, take my FB photo--can't really do much with it, outside of the internets.
 
Off-topic: Please consider using the regular-size font.
Yep.
It has been known for a long time now that serif fonts and low contrast colored text are more difficult to read online than non-serif fonts and high contrast color fonts.
Blocks of text without paragraphs are also difficult to read online.
The web site's default font and color are chosen to maximize readability.

72ppi resolution does a lot more to prevent any *significant* theft, imo.
PPI is meaningless for online display, and is easily changed if someone wants to make a print. So, setting a low PPI is no more effective than a watermark.

For online display, reducing the image pixel dimensions and/or saving at a low JPEG Quality setting might provide some deterrent.

The only sure online deterrent is to not post images online.
 
Used my own image as an example of how easily this can be done.

Made a selection and just a tiny bit of clone-work. Took 30 seconds probably. I could've spent a minute or two more on the pixel level making it perfect, but I wanted to show how quick and easy it is to remove one.

Watermarks are mild deterrent at best and offer no real protection.

CopyrightsDontWork_zps5751a449.jpg
 
Watermarks are mild deterrent at best and offer no real protection.

That's because you're not using the right watermark. Check mine out. It's completely unbeatable.







19950901.png




There is the slight downside of not seeing the original image at all, but when people see a cool watermark like that one they have little doubt about how awesome it would look.
 
^hahaha yep. The bigger the better...
 
OP, it just helps a little. Best protection is do do poor photography and no one will want them Or just use low res images if your worried. Copyright your work and you may be able to get big big bucks if it is stolen.

Flip side is this...when you die most likely all your images will be gone sooner or later. So don't be so tight fisted and share the beauty with others that want the enjoyment.
 
Most pictures posted online are tiny low-res versions, so in the 1 in a million chance that an unscrupulous thief decides to get sneaky, what is he going to do with them anyway, worst case scenario? I’m not trying to be a smart ass, I’m genuinely curious if I’m missing something here. Am I just too darn mellow for my own good in thinking I couldn’t possibly care less if one of my photos gets used to make an LOLcat poster?

Then there’s the obvious fact that anybody who is inclined to “steal” a photo is not going to have a problem investing the 10 additional seconds it takes to remove the watermark.

Maybe it’s just my amateur musician shining through here, but when I post my songs online, I find it flattering when people download and share them. I’m pretty sure I’d feel the same about a photograph, to be honest.

If a photographer wants to put on a “signature” in a similar way to how a painter signs a canvas, then even if I wouldn’t do that personally, I guess I can at least understand it. But when people post pictures of their dog running around in the backyard and slap a blocky copyright watermark on it, I just don’t get it.

If somebody has a genuine concern over theft of a particular creative work, then…. Maybe don’t post it publicly online?
 
Canada recently overhauled their copyright laws, making them more similar to US copyright law.

Here in the US copyright is established as soon as a photo is recorded in a tangible medium, like a memory card.
US copyright law is federal law, so you have to file a legal action for infringement of one or more of your photos in federal court.
Part of US copyright law - USC 17 §411 - says:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.pdf
....no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made....

The timing of copyright registration relative to an infringement also determines what kind of damages - actual or statutory - can be sought.
Statutory damages are easier to prove than actual damages, but statutory damages have award amount limits that range from $250 per infringed image to $150,000 per infringed image.
There is no limit to actual damages. The largest award federal court awarded a photographer that I'm aware of was $12,000,000.00 for the infringement of 6 images by a real estate brokerage in Florida.
Actual damages are often set according to industry standard pricing.

For all the details regarding US copyright law, visit U.S. Copyright Office.

Recently an image of the last Space Shuttle launch surfaced and went viral that a lady took out the window of an airliner she was travelling in with her cell phone camera.
IIRC she had posted it to her Tumbler account which helped the image go viral, but didn't know about copyright registration. If she had, she could have made a lot of money and secured her children's financial future.
 
Last edited:
PPI is meaningless for online display, and is easily changed if someone wants to make a print. So, setting a low PPI is no more effective than a watermark.

That's not necessarily true. If your full image resolution has a pixel density of 300ppi, and you reduce the pixel density of the image to 72 ppi, then the image will cover a higher pixel area on the screen. However, if you leave the pixel density at 72ppi, and you leave the original image constraints as far as the pixel area is concerned, then it reduces the quality of the image, as it compressed the image.

Therefore, if you have a 4,928 x 3,264 image @ 300PPI, and then the same image at 4,928 x 3,264 @ 72PPI, the one at 72PPI actually has a much smaller actual resolution, and is much more compressed. What this results in, is the same viewing area on your computer screen, but a lower possibility for print quality. So, if someone tries to replicate and print your work, it will be too low of a resolution to blow back up into regular print sizes without being pixelated.

 
I couldn't resist.

Joe

$john_deere.jpg
 
For me, the only point of watermarks is attribution.

If you're watermarking to "prevent theft", the only way to make the watermark effective also makes the photo "unviewable". If you're that worried about theft, the solution is simple - don't put it online.
 
If your full image resolution has a pixel density of 300ppi, and you reduce the pixel density of the image to 72 ppi, then the image will cover a higher pixel area on the screen.

Show us how that works.

Now that I'm home and in front of my computer... it's backwards... however.. my resolution comment still stands:

These screenshots were taken from an image that was 5360x3560 @ 300PPI, I kept the same size restraints, and redcued the pixel density to 72ppi and saved the document. Watch what happens when I change the pixel density AFTER reloading the new saved photo at 72PPI, and then blowing it back up to 300PPI:

$Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 5.19.57 PM.jpg


There is also a SUBSTANTIAL quality reduction when blowing that 72PPI photograph back up to it's original size to attempt to make a print out of it.
$Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 5.21.59 PM.jpg

Said once, and will say it again... lowering the pixel density of your photograph can be an OUTSTANDING way to prevent theft of your image online. I mean, if you want to steal that photograph and print that mess... go right ahead...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top