Confused about watermarks

[Buckster]

One thing that putting a copyright notice or watermark on your photos can do for you is that if your work is registered with the copyright office, and you then go on to sue someone who's infringed, and they've removed that notice or watermark, it seriously bolsters your case because it proves willful infringement, and that can mean more money in the settlement.

 

[KmH]

What about the document size - 74.444 inches by 49.444 inches ?

Few would want to print that large.

So they change the pixel dimensions or the size, and the PPI gets reduced.
What is the result with out a check mark in the Resample Image box.

You are offering a circular argument.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

What about the document size - 74.444 inches by 49.444 inches ?

Few would want to print that large.

So they change the pixel dimensions or the size, and the PPI gets reduced.
What is the result with out a check mark in the Resample Image box.

You are offering a circular argument.

That still doesn't explain the EXTREME quality loss when I pasted the image on top of the original document in a new layer, and resized it to the original document size.

 

[TCampbell]

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.

^^
This

Many cameras will add a copyright notice to your images as you shoot -- but it's embedded in the EXIF data and not visible. It turns out, this is still just as valid (perhaps even more valid) than putting something on the image itself because it's actual copyright "notice" and not just a watermark. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that something actually has to state that it's copyrighted in order to be copyrighted... signing your name or watermark to an image doesn't make it copyrighted and I don't believe you can claim infringement unless you make it clear that you copyrighted an image by putting the words "Copyright © 2013 by ____. All rights reserved." or something similar. There are lots of people who apply a 'Creative Commons' license to an image (which grants permission (often conditional permission) to copy it. You wouldn't want a copyright notice on the front of the image, but it is legal to put it in the image EXIF data.

This adds even more protection, because while the copyright info is easily removed from the EXIF data, removal of a copyright notice is a DMCA violation. While there's a penalty for stealing a copyrighted image, there's a different penalty for removing the copyright information from a digital work and the penalty for that is more significant than just copying the work (with the notice still intact.)

If you have a Canon camera, you program the camera to add the copyright by using the EOS Utility software that came with the camera (plug in the USB cord, connect to the camera, and in the camera control window, click the little gear icon.) My workflow software (Aperture) will also automatically add certain info to the EXIF data on every single image I import. I can add a copyright notice that was as well. All of my images have an embedded copyright notice in them and I _never_ strip the EXIF data.

Which brings us back to the watermark topic. I don't believe it offers you any legal protection (I believe the rules for copyright are rather specific. The watermark it is a nice attribution and advertisement. That is all.

The definition of a "watermark" seems to have been distorted over time. Once upon a time, a watermark was something you could only see by holding the paper up to a light and notice that the paper contained a watermark. The watermark pattern altered the opacity of the paper so that you could read the watermark but only by trying to read it. If you were just looking at the paper, you wouldn't notice the watermark was there. Today people use watermarks that are anything but subtle.... they're obvious, completely opaque.

It seems the older I get, the more I dislike watermarks. I don't add them to all my images. If I do add them, it's subtle and hidden in a corner. I set a fairly low opacity so the mark is mostly transparent. I want people to look at my pictures... and not look at my watermark.

I _really_ feel quite strongly that a watermark degrades the quality of an image ... and I don't care who you are or how unbelievably gorgeous your image is. If you slap a watermark on it, you've degraded it. Sometimes when I look at an image that I think is very nice, I'll actually hold my hand over the watermark to block it from view.

I used to do community theater once upon a time. One of the "rules" was... never look an audience member in the eye. Why? Because you'll spoil their illusion. The theater creates an illusion to the audience that they are somehow invisible... as though they are the proverbial "fly on a wall" ... able to spy on life unfolding without being seen. If you LOOK at them, they realize they ARE being seen... it's as though their a peeping tom. The illusion, the magic... is gone.

To me a watermark does the same thing to a photograph. If I look at a beautiful image, then I can have the "illusion" that I'm there ... where your camera was ... and I'm looking at the scene. But as soon as you plaster a watermark on it, that illusion is destroyed. I'm not "there". I'm "here" ... at my desk ... and I'm looking at your watermarked photo. The impact is completely diminished by the watermark.

 

[Benco]

One thing that putting a copyright notice or watermark on your photos can do for you is that if your work is registered with the copyright office, and you then go on to sue someone who's infringed, and they've removed that notice or watermark, it seriously bolsters your case because it proves willful infringement, and that can mean more money in the settlement.

Surely if you can prove that the photograph is yours then it makes no odds, the perpetrator could not suggest that they were unaware that they were infringing your rights just because there was no need to remove a watermark could they?

 

[Buckster]

One thing that putting a copyright notice or watermark on your photos can do for you is that if your work is registered with the copyright office, and you then go on to sue someone who's infringed, and they've removed that notice or watermark, it seriously bolsters your case because it proves willful infringement, and that can mean more money in the settlement.

Surely if you can prove that the photograph is yours then it makes no odds, the perpetrator could not suggest that they were unaware that they were infringing your rights just because there was no need to remove a watermark could they?

A Great Lecture About Photography and The Copyright Law | DIYPhotography.net

Go to about the 42 minute mark and watch to about the 47 minute mark.

The whole vid should be viewed, but that section will help answer the question.

 

[KmH]

One thing that putting a copyright notice or watermark on your photos can do for you is that if your work is registered with the copyright office, and you then go on to sue someone who's infringed, and they've removed that notice or watermark, it seriously bolsters your case because it proves willful infringement, and that can mean more money in the settlement.

Surely if you can prove that the photograph is yours then it makes no odds, the perpetrator could not suggest that they were unaware that they were infringing your rights just because there was no need to remove a watermark could they?

Yes, they can, and they do.
Unintentional copyright infringement does occur, but intentional infringement is way more common.
The unintentional copyright infringement is still a copyright infringement, and the infringer is assessed a lower amount that has to be paid as damages to the copyright owner.

The removal of a watermark, signature, or copyright statement is not needed to prove a willful infringement.
Stripping of the EXIF, or IPTC metadata from a digital image is another possible indicator of a willful infringement.
Obviously, some professions are expected to be fairly well informed about copyright issues. It would likely be hard for an advertising agency to claim they were unaware they were infringing someones copyright.

 

[Buckster]

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that something actually has to state that it's copyrighted in order to be copyrighted...

Nope, not true. It's copyrighted the instant it's made by whomever created the work. That person then has to actively give up their copyright to make it anything else, like public domain or licensing.

signing your name or watermark to an image doesn't make it copyrighted and I don't believe you can claim infringement unless you make it clear that you copyrighted an image by putting the words "Copyright © 2013 by ____. All rights reserved." or something similar.

Nope, not true. Same answer as above.

The creator has a valid copyright from the moment they create the work, no matter what, signed or unsigned, in the EXIF or not, shown or not shown on the work itself. Their copyright is valid and in effect from the moment of creation unless they actively and specifically give up that copyright. Registering that work strengthens the copyright by a considerable degree, especially when it comes to monetary compensation in an infringement claim.

Go to the 1 hour 17 minute mark of the video I posted above.

 

[Benco]

One thing that putting a copyright notice or watermark on your photos can do for you is that if your work is registered with the copyright office, and you then go on to sue someone who's infringed, and they've removed that notice or watermark, it seriously bolsters your case because it proves willful infringement, and that can mean more money in the settlement.

Surely if you can prove that the photograph is yours then it makes no odds, the perpetrator could not suggest that they were unaware that they were infringing your rights just because there was no need to remove a watermark could they?

A Great Lecture About Photography and The Copyright Law | DIYPhotography.net

Go to about the 42 minute mark and watch to about the 47 minute mark.

The whole vid should be viewed, but that section will help answer the question.

Thanks Buckster, I'll wade through the whole lecture later...maybe.

 

[e.rose]

Is it that time of the month again?

 

[KmH]

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that something actually has to state that it's copyrighted in order to be copyrighted...

signing your name or watermark to an image doesn't make it copyrighted and I don't believe you can claim infringement unless you make it clear that you copyrighted an image by putting the words "Copyright © 2013 by ____. All rights reserved." or something similar.

That was true before changes were made 37 years ago with the Copyright Act of 1976.

See U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright in General (FAQ)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Copyright Act of 1976 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The wording of section 102 is significant mainly because it effectuated a major change in the mode of United States copyright protection. Under the last major statutory revision to U.S. copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1909, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed.