Watermarks in business?

[DGMPhotography]

Hello! So I've mostly opted out of using watermarks, but when I do use them they are usually pretty inconspicuous. My question, would it be better to leave the image completely clean and watermark free, or should you have a watermark so viewers at least know who the photographer was? What if it's on your own website, and if you upload the images in different places should some places have a watermark, and others not?

Thanks!

 

[Benco]

It's up to you, as far as intellectual property goes it makes no odds, your photograph is yours, watermaked or not. My preference is to not use full resolution images on the web and keep them free of watermarks, anyone who infringes and tries to claim that such images are theirs will have a job to prove it when I hold the only full resolution version.

 

[SCraig]

As Benco said, it is entirely up to you. Everything I put on the internet is rather low resolution (800 x 533), however I do watermark each one simply so that honest people know I shot them.

META data is easily stripped from an image, watermarks are easily cropped or cloned out. Neither will do ANYTHING whatsoever to prevent theft of the image.

 

[o hey tyler]

I for the life of me cannot begin to understand you.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/320112-professional-shoot-what-do.html

You are clearly hell bent on making money with photography but you don't have the necessary skills or equipment to do so. After even telling me, and the rest of the forum community that you weren't getting into the business aspect like a month ago.

Do what you want I guess. Good luck.

 

[DGMPhotography]

You, sir Tyler, need to read a bit more carefully. I'm still not doing it for money yet, all the shoots I'm doing are of friends, for free. I'm asking about watermarks for like Facebook so when my friend's use my pictures their friends would see my watermark and know who I am, but my question was would it be worth it, if it subtracts from the image at all. Thanks to those who offered some good advice, I really appreciate it!

 

[o hey tyler]

You, sir Tyler, need to read a bit more carefully. I'm still not doing it for money yet, all the shoots I'm doing are of friends, for free. I'm asking about watermarks for like Facebook so when my friend's use my pictures their friends would see my watermark and know who I am, but my question was would it be worth it, if it subtracts from the image at all. Thanks to those who offered some good advice, I really appreciate it!

Do tell, WHAT do I need to read more carefully?

The title of your thread is "Watermarks in business." Business, 99% of the time means monetary transactions. You also posted this in "general shop talk" which is a business section generally for working photographers. Is it so wrong for me to make the assumption that you are accepting money for photographs based on the information provided?

 

[Ilovemycam]

If your a wedding or portrait photog, sure use big WM's or your clients will get the pix for free if the photos are previewed on the net.

But, I don't fool with them any more. I used to use 800 kb and WM them. Now I use 200kb files at my site and no WM. Low res files only go so far with making prints. I reduced the size since I plan to sell prints or at least offer limited edition prints on eBay someday. My pix are not pretty and ugly pix are only for collectors.

But before a collector wants them, you have to be 'somewhat known' to the photo collector world.
My files have my name and copyright info on them, but that can be removed. I need to do the meta data someday, but I don't know how as of now. I'm an old film photog, not much of a digital photog. Most of my pix are of the 'iconic' nature or at least 'very unusual' and not easily confused with others pix like the tons of 'star trails' or 'sunsets' and 'flower' pix that flood the net.

I have been working to get my photos archived in various museums and rare book libraries. I have had some success. (Over 12 placements in 6 months out of 200+ solicitations) If and when the museums or rare book libraries digitize my pix and they are on the web / Google searches...my pix will show up more and become more iconic.

I also did a book, but it is in PDF only right now. That will further cement the images in society. I gave the images all names, so that is how they will become known. We all know Ansel Adams pix, that is what I aspire to do with my work. I don't have any delusions of being a Ansel Adams, but you get the idea...well known, iconic, pix and there is no question who shot it.

That is how I do it anyway. Don't know if it is the best way or not.

I also keep a portfolio of photogs work I find on the forums. Print them up, put them in a Pratt post bound book or save a file if it is something I like, but not print worthy. I put their screen name on the image or back of print. I prefer images without WM on them.

I don't mind if people do the same with my images. But I will only offer a decent 6 x 8 print for free with the image files I use. If I didn't have plans to sell them, I would not care. All our pix will be gone one day most likely. Do you think you will be as lucky as Vivian Maier to have books made of your work after you die?

Archive all you can now!

 

[Benco]

If your a wedding or portrait photog, sure use big WM's or your clients will get the pix for free if the photos are previewed on the net.

Not if you have a contract with them.

 

[tirediron]

If your a wedding or portrait photog, sure use big WM's or your clients will get the pix for free if the photos are previewed on the net.

Not if you have a contract with them.

If only the world really worked that way! I'm also a fan of the low res vice water mark. My typical preview image is around 50kb; suitable (maybe) for a facebook profile image, but that's about it.

 

[Benco]

If your a wedding or portrait photog, sure use big WM's or your clients will get the pix for free if the photos are previewed on the net.

Not if you have a contract with them.

If only the world really worked that way! I'm also a fan of the low res vice water mark. My typical preview image is around 50kb; suitable (maybe) for a facebook profile image, but that's about it.

People are prepared to steal their own Wedding photos? what have we become?

 

[DGMPhotography]

If your a wedding or portrait photog, sure use big WM's or your clients will get the pix for free if the photos are previewed on the net.

Not if you have a contract with them.

If only the world really worked that way! I'm also a fan of the low res vice water mark. My typical preview image is around 50kb; suitable (maybe) for a facebook profile image, but that's about it.

I'm glad that with an online forum like this, you have the ability to choose what you take away from posts and who you respond to. So tirediron, you're against watermarks altogether?

 

[KmH]

People are prepared to steal their own Wedding photos? what have we become?

Human!

 

[tirediron]

Not if you have a contract with them.

If only the world really worked that way! I'm also a fan of the low res vice water mark. My typical preview image is around 50kb; suitable (maybe) for a facebook profile image, but that's about it.

I'm glad that with an online forum like this, you have the ability to choose what you take away from posts and who you respond to. So tirediron, you're against watermarks altogether?

No, I use them, but when I use them, it's only to show people who took the picture, not for any sort of protection. I don't watermark client/proof galleries or such things.

 

[tirediron]

People are prepared to steal their own Wedding photos? what have we become?

Human!

Which for some is an improvement, but begs the question, "What did they start out as?"

 

[Buckster]

Watermarks: Some do, some don't; To each, his own. I'm not a fan of them, and they generally turn me off when looking at others' photos if they use them. To me, it's like looking at a picture through a screen door - no matter how good the picture is, I keep seeing the screen in my way of viewing it.

That said, I've never watermarked my images because I think it detracts from them to have another image on top of them like an engraved glass signature mucking them up.

I only recently started putting a very small copyright notice on them in a corner of the image, and that's only to help establish intent in case I ever decide to sue someone for copyright infringement. That decision came about after watching this video: A Great Lecture About Photography and The Copyright Law | DIYPhotography.net