Do you watermark?

[Trever1t]

watermarlk for advert mostly.

 

[Bossy]

Five Things You Can Do to Protect Your Online Images | Photo Attorney

Registering Your Copyrights Using the eCO System | NatureScapes.Net ? The Resource for Nature Photographers

Embedded Metadata Initiative

https://nppa.org/page/5617

Help! I've Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney

Personal Opinion Fail Keith

 

[cmarie87]

I do only on photos posted to social media such as FB, blog.

 

[weepete]

Nah, I don't bother, but again I'm a hobby photographer so I don't need to advertise.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I do when I post on facebook and such. I've been seeing a lot of other photographers who weren't using watermarks post about other people stealing their work lately, and claiming it as their own. It also is nice having the watermarks act as an advertisement too

 

[vintagesnaps]

Usually once I start looking at a website's Terms & Conditions I often end up finding a deal breaker (the ever popular - grant a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, and on and on license to use, reproduce, distribute, etc. etc. and to make it even better (<--- sarcasm) redistribute and/or sublicense to third parties...). So that eliminates a lot of websites, to me my photos are my property, and my time and effort and ability goes into what I do - I see no reason to allow others to benefit from that.

So I usually downsize and go lo res and watermark thru the most significant part of the photo; I customize the color so it somewhat blends in to not be too distracting yet maybe helps make it a real nuisance to try to remove! lol which may be of little help but might make someone think twice when they're looking for photos to steal.

 

[sm4him]

Yes, I do. I'm not a "professional," but I do sell a bit here and there these days, and aspire to maybe one day get up the nerve to try to have a showing or something. Like others, the "main" reason I watermark is just a little advertising, and mine is just a simple font with the copyright symbol, the year and my name. I try to make it as unobtrusive to the photo as possible.
Some people just find them distracting, period. Fortunately for me, those people are not in charge of MY photos.

But I do also do it for a security reasons, to a VERY slight degree, and with the acknowledgement that anyone who wants to steal MY stuff is beyond hard up. :lmao:
When my boys were in scouts, our Scoutmaster *required* a lock on every trunk that the boys took to summer camp (a lock with TWO keys; one for the boy, and one for the scoutmaster, so when the boy LOST his, he could still get into the trunk).
Anyway...he also asked the boys why they thought he required the locks, and the answer was always something along the line, of "DUH, to keep people from stealing our stuff!"

The Scoutmaster would then tell them that the lock wasn't REALLY for that, as dishonest people who want your stuff will pretty easily find their way in to a footlocker, even if it's locked.
The lock, he said, was simply to KEEP Honest Scouts Honest.

And THAT is why I watermark for security reasons--NOT to keep those with no sense of ethics from taking it, but so that those who are inclined to be honest in the first place KNOW that it is not some "random picture from the internet" that is just free for the taking.

 

[wyogirl]

I watermark things that I intend to sell (portraits) but I don't watermark anything I put on here or Flickr.
For Flickr, I do have "all rights reserved" but I don't watermark... here is my logic there: If Joe Schmo wants to steam my image to print or put on his desktop, whatever, I'm not that concerned. If a legitimate company wants to use it, they will contact me. If I find it somewhere else being used, then I have a letter that I can send, but really, my flickr is mostly landscapes and there are a lot better images out there.

 

[remylebeau]

I don't watermark. If people are going to take an image they're going to take it regardless. As for advertising my work if someone sees my image they'll likely be seeing it my website or facebook page, so it's not like they don't know who I am or what I do. Any other shots that gets shared or lost I really don't see how it could lead back to me for work. This idea that "you never know" isn't compelling enough for me to watermark. On the flip side I tend to feel watermarks takes away from an image. I'm personally drawn to text and symbols and it pulls my attention away from the shot. I'd rather my shots be enjoyed as is.

 

[Derrel]

I've started putting my name and a contact point and a copyright/year notice on images I upload. I've gotten some referrals from this. I dunno....to people who want to STEAL images from web pages, it's do-able by ANY thief worth his salt...but I do like legitimate people to know how they can contact me.

 

[Tailgunner]

The lock, he said, was simply to KEEP Honest Scouts Honest.

And THAT is why I watermark for security reasons--NOT to keep those with no sense of ethics from taking it, but so that those who are inclined to be honest in the first place KNOW that it is not some "random picture from the internet" that is just free for the taking.

This about sums it up for me.

I try to keep my watermarks to a bare minimum as well, initials and copyright symbol only.

 

[DBA]

Depends on the client, for some I put their name/watermark on for them, other times they take care of it themselves. But yes for the most part everything digital gets a small © in a corner, prints never do though.

Lightroom export presets work great for this.

 

[table1349]

Since I don't throw my stuff up at the online places for all to see, no I don't. I do however put a very small watermark on the bottom right corner of every print I sell with my logo and the year.

 

[JG_Coleman]

I still don't really understand why it is that threads of this topic have abounded so often over the years. A watermark is ultimately such an innocuous detail in the grand scheme of things that I can't fathom why the decision to watermark takes any longer than a moment.

Do it, don't it: it's really not all that complicated, nor are there any major implications one way or the other. Adding reasonable watermarks to your work isn't going to make you lose business. Not watermarking your image probably won't lead it being stolen all that much more than it would otherwise.

I truly chuckle everytime I see someone try to make a big deal over watermarking as if it's an abomination that ruins viewing pleasure of an image. These folks seem to have some sort of odd, as-yet-unnamed neurosis whereby their attention is inexplicably and irreversibly drawn to a watermark. It could be a watermark that occupies all of 3% of the frame in the lower right-corner and they'll moan on and on about how they "can't see past the watermark" and "this hurts the image". * eye roll * There will be professional help for these folks one day... medicine just isn't there yet, unfortunately, but somebody's doing lab research somewhere!

In the meantime, just choose to do it or not do it. Don't ruminate on it for more than a day... because at that point your making a mountain out of a mole hill. Watermarking has precisely ZERO effect upon the image unless you go completely nuts and plaster your face directly over the center of the frame. A watermark in the corner, which can be large enough to include your name and website, is completely harmless to all normal human beings. When evaluating the content of the image, they will look right past it without a second thought.

 

[chainsawal]

I am too lazy to watermark. And honestly I don't feel they protect the image anyway.

Just my opinion: If you place the Watermark on the photo in a way where it actually does protect, it generally ruins the image itself and become distracting doing more harm than good as the end user is trying to select their images. On the other hand, if you place the watermark in less distracting area, then anyone with half a technical brain and photoshop can remove it (albeit it won't be perfect, but most end users think pictures look great when photographers think they are horrible).

As some people mentioned above, I think watermarks today serve more as an advertising vehicle on photos than protection.