GPS Studio Services wrote:
Everyone note:  This is a zombie thread.  The people you are replying to are no longer participating in the thread.

Damn, I really need to start looking closer at when a thread was started, and not just that it popped up on the first page of the forum.

But that is ok, because this way nobody has to deal with my sarcasm.

ybfoto wrote:

This is a brilliant idea that will almost guarantee that no agency would touch these images with a 10 foot poll and the only value the model would get would be posting them on MM or Facebook.  I mean seriously tear sheets are so over rated.

I'm not responding to this poster directly because it's 9 month old post, just using it as an example since it's come up a few times.

If an agency wants to use an image that has a watermark, in my experience, they just contact the photographer (since a good watermark will show them who owns it) and ask for a version without. No drama really like what the poster is suggesting.

Pretty much the process with anyone that comes across a watermarked image, they context the owner.

Simples.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Everyone note:  This is a zombie thread.  The people you are replying to are no longer participating in the thread.

i hereby un-zombie this thread :-)

Ava Photography wrote:

i hereby un-zombie this thread :-)

studio36uk wrote:
The suggestion was also made above to rely on metadata, and that is a dodgy proposition exactly because:

1) there is little case law to suggest that it [metadata] can or can not be stripped out, ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES A COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND NOT MERELY CAMERA OR TECHNICAL DATA, and many sites do strip it out comprehensively = the copyright management information that it represents, including the notice of copyright, is lost entirely; and

2) there is also little case law to suggest that anything other than a visually perceptible, or perceptible with the aid of a machine or device, mark is acceptable e.g. the placement of a proper copyright notice is typically accepted for photographs and similar 2D graphic works, as one being placed in any one of: the back of the image, and web images, of course, have no back; the face of the image; or a on a selvage [added border]. Use of metadata, per se, for this purpose is simply not mentioned at all. US copyright law and Regulation requires that the copyright notice, if one is affixed to a work or a copy, must be affixed and positioned to give "reasonable notice of the claim of copyright" and the notice must be durable. See: 1) above

Studio36

curious - what if the metadata said something along the lines of “removal of this copyright information from the metadata constitutes a willful violation of the DMCA“ and “these terms cannot be waived by a third party, nor is the copyright holder bound by any agreements entered into by anyone other than the copyright holder” and “these terms shall remain binding even if they have been removed by a prior user” - would that kind of language help strengthen your case against someone who used your image without your authorization?

Ava Photography wrote:

i hereby un-zombie this thread :-)

Why?  It's still a crappy thing to give a model watermarked images this year as it was last year.

Ava Photography wrote:
does a watermark (generally, or ever) imply that a model is paid?

the reason i ask is that i recently did an unpaid shoot.  After the shoot, watermarked photos were provided.  One (of several) models objected, stating as basis for the objection the implication to third parties that the photographer paid the models when that was not actually true in the case at hand.

[As an aside, an MUA for the model also made a last minute suggestion prior to the shoot that RAW images be provided for free.  I think this ground has already been covered in other discussions and the short answer is no unless it is a paid shoot and there is a sale and/or usage contract.]

I already readily acknowledge that a signed prior agreement is preferred to such post shoot discussions.

I have never heard of this implication before in several years of shooting models.  I have an opinion, but I want to doublecheck it with the community.

lol wow. Fun stuff isn't it? I have not heard of that silliness, before today.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
If you told me in a trade that I was going to get watermarked images for my end of the deal I would pass. I don't care if you were the most popular photographer in the world. The times I did get some took me by surprise and wasn't discussed in pre.

So if there was a time machine and you had the chance to sit for a free painting session with Da Vinci and he wanted to sign the front before he gave you the portrait you would turn it down, eh?

P O T T S wrote:
To me, it is poor taste to watermark an image on a trade shoot. I give out two sets, one websized with watermarks, another hi-res, no watermarks. If the team is trading, why does the photographer think his or her logo should be emblazoned across everyone's images for their books? I think its tacky.

Bing. 100% Agree.

If it's really a trade, value everyone's time equally and make sure there are formats available that are actually useful to the people who put work in (that includes models, MUA, etc.) Watermarks are often super tacky and at the same time, tragically, very important in the digital age. I get the desire to watermark things that will end up on say, tumblr or even Facebook, but for a portfolio? No watermarks please, it's a very reasonable request. If you're booking a model for a test shoot through an agency, the agent would ask the same thing.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
The problem is that it is considered inappropriate to put watermarked images in your agency print portfolio.   It just isn't generally done.  So it is a catch-22.  I understand your point, but few agencies in US major markets will accept watermarked images for portfolio use.

They wont put watermark images on the online web portfolio either. If the OP and the other people pro watermark go to any top agency website  they will see none of the images are watermarked.


I only watermark my proofs all final images are watermarked free.

Honestly it just looks ugly having a whole bunch of different style watermarks from various shooters in your portfolio it doesn't make it look neat in my opinion.

studio36uk wrote:
JUST A SIDE NOTE to the watermark or not discussion(s).

In the US you can not obtain the full protection of the copyright law and claim the full measure of damages [statutory damages] for an infringement unless you register your images beforehand [in most instances]; Removing an existing mark is also separately actionable, and is a separate civil office, but no action on that account can lie without first marking them.

In other counties [many others] where there is no registration regime it is not unusual that you will not be able to collect excess [statutory, or exemplary, or punitive, or moral rights] damages without marking the images before they are infringed... indeed before they are distributed in any form or fashion.

In my opinion the ONLY way to manage that, and it is not the best practice, is to only distribute unmarked images under an explicit and limited license for specific purposes. But even then there is the high probability that you will have little or no recourse against a third party.

Studio36

You are correct except that you still have recourse in the US, just not punitive damages.  You can still claim damages or force an image to be removed etc.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
JUST A SIDE NOTE to the watermark or not discussion(s).
Studio36

You are correct except that you still have recourse in the US, just not punitive statutory damages.  You can still claim damages or force an image to be removed etc.

That is ture in the US and also true elsewhere but the damages are limited, usually, to what you might have gotten as the ordinary license fee -OR- by a judgement against the infringer's profits if you can show that there even were any. Neither of which [and also neither of which will necessarily also include an award of legal fees and costs] will generally be worth the effort.

Most ISP's, and if not them a network provider a level above them, will undertake to take-down [or block] images complained about, even where the particular national law does not specifically mention or require it, but there are different levels of compliance and differing procedures in different countries. I have, from time to time, but only that and rarely, been refused flat out on a notice of take-down. Some countries are tough nuts to crack for a take-down.

Studio36