To use watermark or not to use watermark?

[paigew]

I use one [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

I never used to mark my photos with anything. However, a copyright attorney convinced me that it was well worth it to place at the very least a very small copyright notification on my images, which I now do, usually in the lower right corner, VERY small, like teeny-tiny, just enough to see it. I also color it so that it blends in pretty well with that corner of the photo to keep it from standing out like a shout, but can be readily seen.

It informs anyone who sees it that it IS a copyrighted photo, so they can't claim they didn't know. If they remove it, it shows intent to willfully violate my copyright. Those were the main points the attorney made, and they made sense to me. I also register every image that doesn't get deleted with the US Copyright Office, whether I intend to use it or not.

As for actual watermarks, I only use them on images posted to proof pages for my clients, in order to keep them from nabbing the images without paying. Those watermarks are big, they are ugly, they cover the entire photo from top to bottom with a repeating pattern of a copyright notice and "for proof only" in big fat letters. It's very light colored and very translucent, so that the client can see the images well enough to choose which ones they want printed at which sizes, but would be WAY too much work for anyone to successfully remove, and too ugly for them to use anywhere.

I don't post any other versions of those images anywhere until after the client has made their purchases.

My prints have no notifications or watermarks of any kind on them.

The only way watermarks are worth a damn, (as in ... if they can used to produce monetary damages/awards), is in conjunction with actually registering your images with the patent office.

 

[Buckster]

I never used to mark my photos with anything. However, a copyright attorney convinced me that it was well worth it to place at the very least a very small copyright notification on my images, which I now do, usually in the lower right corner, VERY small, like teeny-tiny, just enough to see it. I also color it so that it blends in pretty well with that corner of the photo to keep it from standing out like a shout, but can be readily seen.

It informs anyone who sees it that it IS a copyrighted photo, so they can't claim they didn't know. If they remove it, it shows intent to willfully violate my copyright. Those were the main points the attorney made, and they made sense to me. I also register every image that doesn't get deleted with the US Copyright Office, whether I intend to use it or not.

As for actual watermarks, I only use them on images posted to proof pages for my clients, in order to keep them from nabbing the images without paying. Those watermarks are big, they are ugly, they cover the entire photo from top to bottom with a repeating pattern of a copyright notice and "for proof only" in big fat letters. It's very light colored and very translucent, so that the client can see the images well enough to choose which ones they want printed at which sizes, but would be WAY too much work for anyone to successfully remove, and too ugly for them to use anywhere.

I don't post any other versions of those images anywhere until after the client has made their purchases.

My prints have no notifications or watermarks of any kind on them.

The only way watermarks are worth a damn, (as in ... if they can used to produce monetary damages/awards), is in conjunction with actually registering your images with the patent office.

You mean with the copyright office.

And they can be worth a damn if they deter even one person from using them without payment or permission from me. They can also be worth a damn when insisting that someone pay for using an image that clearly has a notification on it, without having to take them to court. And monetary gain / damages / awards is exactly why I mark my photos with a copyright notice and register every one of them with the US Copyright Office.

 

[KmH]

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

Per the DMCA section of US Copyright law copyright civil damages can be sought in District court without having the copyright registered. But, the damages that can be awarded are less than for a registered copyright. Two Easy Steps for Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement | NPPA

Unlike other copyright infringement remedies, your copyright does not have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office for you to take advantage of this DMCA provision.

What's An Infringement Worth? | Photo Attorney

Do you guys use watermark? Is that really importance? I have not thought about watermark until someone suggests I should?

Everything I post on the net or Instagram is watermarked, re-sized (usually 1000kb or less), resolution is reduced to 72.

Online (electronic display) resolution is the pixel dimensions. The pixel dimensions are the photo resolution.
Reducing the ppi to 72 does nothing online, because ppi and the photo resolution (pixel dimensions) define print resolution.
All anyone would need to do is change the ppi to whatever value they want. The smaller the ppi the bigger the print.
If you want to make it hard for someone to make prints, reduce the pixel dimensions..

1000kb is a file size.

Pixels / PPI = Inches of print size. (Note: the pixel units cancel leaving inches)

This photo has photo resolution of 3807 x 2719 px, is set to a print resolution of 1 ppi, and has a file size of 610 kb (Quality setting of 5, 12 is the max quality setting)

 

[Usul]

Use it but don't put it in the middle of images like someones do. I can understand that a professional wants to protect his photos or advertise himself but i don't understand why an amateur places huge watermark at the center of images. What is the goal? The photos with such watermarks just distract me even if they aren't bad.

 

[JimMcClain]

If a signature is good enough for a painter or sculptor, it's good enough for me. I "sign" most all my pictures in the lower left or right corner. It's small, but big enough to read. What I think is ridiculous are pictures with a watermark that fills a large area of the picture, sometimes right dead center, and takes away from the enjoyment of the picture.

 

[Forkie]

I don't watermark. My name is in the image metadata, but I'd rather not sully my images with a logo. If the watermark is too small it won't be effective at inhibiting theft, if it's too big, it will be a distraction from the photograph.

I never begrudge anyone else using them, but I prefer not to.

 

[MSnowy]

I use one . My mother always said "you keep doing what your doing and someday we'll see your name in print hanging on the wall". She was referring to wanted posters hanging on the wall of the post office.

 

[Msteelio91]

I "sign" my images.

My watermark is my signature.

I'll remember that if you ever send me a check lol