critiqued for using "watermark"...?

[matt62485]

on a local forum i posted up a few shots, 75% of the set didn't have my signature in the corner b/c it was from a wedding I shot for a friend. a few, however did. a couple guys were arguing back and forth about some stuff and someone made the comment "When 90% of the internet adds 20px black borders and a gaudy sig to their uploaded stuff, maybe this isn't a coincidence." in response to a guy saying he hears "everyone is a photographer these days"

so i asked them if they referring to me... 2 of them said no, it was just a general statement, then one proceeded to say "in short answer, YES"... so i asked him to explain and the response was "just don't think you need a watermark. I don't think anyone is going to steal your images and make money from them, and I'm also pretty sure that you don't make money from them either. It's just a pointless thing that makes your images look less appealing. See what I'm saying?"

while i understand the point, im just curious of yalls stand point. im trying to expand my knowledge exponentially over time with this stuff, id love to sell some images on the side, ive had a few inquiries without even trying to put myself out there yet. also had a bridesmade of the wedding i took inquire about me shooting hers as well.

here is my "gaudy" sig.

feel free to C&C. if you agree with him let me know, if its overwhelming ill stop uploading my signature into them.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Watermarks make you Pro!

 

[Blake.Oney]

Does he know for a fact that someone trying to do and online magazine wouldn't steal it without the watermark? A blog? It's not just about advertisements. There are as many people out there trying to be blog celebrities as there are trying to be photographers so it's pretty likely that at some point someone would end up using one of your images for something without permission, whether they made money on it or not. Your watermark is fine and if someone was making a blog about the town the photo was in, or a blog about beaches or anything relevant they would be looking for photos like that. It's not that you're a wannabe for having a signature. You're protecting your rights to that image.

 

[matt62485]

Watermarks make you Pro!

4srs>?

though really, im not doing it to act like a pro, i know im no pro

 

[matt62485]

Does he know for a fact that someone trying to do and online magazine wouldn't steal it without the watermark? A blog? It's not just about advertisements. There are as many people out there trying to be blog celebrities as there are trying to be photographers so it's pretty likely that at some point someone would end up using one of your images for something without permission, whether they made money on it or not. Your watermark is fine and if someone was making a blog about the town the photo was in, or a blog about beaches or anything relevant they would be looking for photos like that. It's not that you're a wannabe for having a signature. You're protecting your rights to that image.

thanks, thats my outlook as well. a guy i know took one of my images off facebook for his website without asking, it has my sig, so im not too concerned but i dont want it to happen repeatedly. he is designing me a website as sort of payment but its just the fact any joe blow could probably find them on flickr/photobucket.

do i think my images are worthy that tons of people want to steal them? no, its just the fact of.

since, everything i put on facebook photography wise has a huge ass watermark on it.

 

[Blake.Oney]

There's a guy on here in New Orleans that had one of his shots swiped from his flickr and put on a blog. No photo credit or anything. It wasn't a huge deal, but he at least wanted some credit for it.

 

[Boomn4x4]

You are dealing with photographers, whom one would have to assume knows the first thing about Photoshop... Anyone who knows the first thing about photoshop could clone that watermark out in 30 seconds...

You are silly to think that a Watermark will protect you.

The only reason to have a watermark is if you are showboating your photography and want people to know who did it hoping to strike up business... In otherwords, if you are using it as an advertisment as a professional photographer.

 

[Stosh]

This is similar to the "My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit" (or OK) debate. It means different things to different people. But claiming the reason is for protection is kind of silly. Yes, there is a minuscule amount of "protection", but for anyone who knows what they're doing or really wants an image, if you display it, it's theirs for the taking.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Watermarks make you Pro!

I thought PhotoShopz made you a Pro...?

Besides, I think what the guys was so mad about is like, do you really expect us to believe that those marks were made with water? I tried marking some of my best images with water, and like totally effed my hard drive. $800 of data recovery later, and my work is still unmarked and will get stolen if I put it them on the interwebs.

 

[Heck]

Take what people say on the net with a grain of salt. Some hate water marks and some don't. I seen water marks that would make grown men cry and others that are pretty cool. It depends on the size and design. It can be a small level of defense against someone using your photo without permission. Or it can be used as promotion. Just do what makes you happy and what you feel looks good. It will change over time that's for sure.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Just a noob here, so feel free to ignore me.........

I would think that the watermark in question would offer almost no protection to that image whatsoever, and wouldn't stop anyone from using it if they wanted to. I could be cropped out in seconds, or PSd out in minutes.

Also....... I don't see anything wrong with watermarking your images. If you're proud of them, let people see who took them.

 

[ChevyBaby]

lol this thread cheered me ups

the people on the other forum are clearly bitter folk. the pic youve posted is gorgeous - i just stole it.

 

[tirediron]

My $00.02 worth? Watermarks offer only slightly more than zero protection. They're easily removed by anyone with even a moderate amount of skill. Are they bad? No, not at all. I think a simple, conservative watermark such as that in the OPs image is fine. Even the most unskilled painter signs his/her work; why should we be any different? The only time I object to watrmarks is when they cover so much of the image that it's hard to see.

 

[GeneralBenson]

lol this thread cheered me ups

the people on the other forum are clearly bitter folk. the pic youve posted is gorgeous - i just stole it.

Dude!!! You can't do that! It has a watermark on it! That means it's copyrighted now and isn't public domain anymore! :lmao:

 

[bazooka]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am... but isn't a watermark something that covers a large part of the image and effectively ruins it for practical use? From what I understand, the image above contains a signature, not a watermark. Also, a watermark, by definition, is 'transparent' for lack of a better word. Something like this... http://www.xaraxone.com/webxealot/workbook39/watermark_10.jpg . And is in fact, quite difficult to remove. Right?