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.

Watermarks have nothing to do with whether or not the model was paid.
Some photographers use them so that it's more difficult for other people to alter and steal their work. Also, when people re-post an image and choose not to "credit" the photographer, the watermark can ensure that the viewer knows who owns the copyright to the image.  As far as I know, that's about the extent of it.  Sounds like the model was just uninformed.

ME_ wrote:
Why would a model resent others having the assumption that she was paid to do a shoot anyway? It just makes her sound "better."

Agreed.  Who cares if the model was paid.  A model's portfolio could consist entirely of commercial tear sheets (paid work) and still win work.

That said most agencies will not use photos which are watermarked in a model's book.

Best way to avoid this dilemma going forward is to be very specific about your deliverables.

For now you need to decide what its worth to you.  Do you insist the model only use photos with your watermark?  Or do you concede to his/her demands in hopes they will favorably advertise your services by word of mouth?

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

craziest thing I've heard all day

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.

Just tell her that, in order to protect her reputation, you'll be more than happy to let her have un-watermarked copies of the images.  Then....   Tell her how much you want for them.

Tell the MUA that you have no agreement with her/him.

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.

I would object too...it's a personal thing I'm sure but putting a watermark on a model's images TF or otherwise seems a bit tacky. I was guilty of that early on.

As someone else mentioned, the watermark is more than likely to give the indication that the photo session was NOT paid...otherwise why would you be "tagging" the finished images?

-Ira wrote:
...Best way to avoid this dilemma going forward is to be very specific about your deliverables...

+1  I now request agreement and acceptance of at least one "clean" image for any creative test BEFORE I accept the assignment... Watermarks, branding, logos render an image virtually worthless for an agency level talent's book...

That said, if paid I would never request anything other than the agreed upon recompense... 

Having all team members on the same page BEFORE a session is the appropriate thing to do...

all the best on your journey...

ArtistryImage wrote:

+1  I now request agreement and acceptance of at least one "clean" image for any creative test BEFORE I accept the assignment... Watermarks, branding, logos render an image virtually worthless for an agency level talent's book...

That said, if paid I would never request anything other than the agreed upon recompense... 

Having all team members on the same page BEFORE a session is the appropriate thing to do...

all the best on your journey...

You want a photographer to wave their right to be identified as the author and copyright owner and not to include appropriate copyright management information? Pay for the privilege. End of story.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
You want a photographer to wave their right to be identified as the author and copyright owner and not to include appropriate copyright management information? Pay for the privilege. End of story.

Studio36

The individual can imbed copyright information within the file...
I always credit the full team...
If the photographer doesn't accept my request... so be it... I don't accept the job...

btw... tearsheets trump everything in a talent's book....
haven't seen many watermarked tearsheets recently...

enough said...

ArtistryImage wrote:

+1  I now request agreement and acceptance of at least one "clean" image for any creative test BEFORE I accept the assignment... Watermarks, branding, logos render an image virtually worthless for an agency level talent's book...

That said, if paid I would never request anything other than the agreed upon recompense... 

Having all team members on the same page BEFORE a session is the appropriate thing to do...

all the best on your journey...

Are you speaking of hard prints or images for the web?

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

No.

Ava Photography wrote:
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.

Inaccurate beliefs.

Ava Photography wrote:
an MUA for the model also made a last minute suggestion prior to the shoot that RAW images be provided for free.

That MUA is delusional, full stop.

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 emlazened across everyone's images for their books? I think its tacky.

There are good reasons other than "blazing", as you put it.  I place a small mark on web images. Do your homework, you might figure that out.

studio36uk wrote:
A watermark, logo or copyright notice, or anything similar even just the name of the photographer [in the US] are now collectively called "copyright management information"

To the OP specifically, be careful with that model's objection because it's a warning sign and it will likely lead to them, or someone at their direction, removing the marks.

I would warn them in advance, and in writing not to do so. If they do you are fully within your rights to issue a DMCA take-down notice where ever you find one like that as well as chase them for money damages for doing so.

For ref see:  17 USC §§1202,1203

Bidness is bidness.

Studio36

^^THIS^^

OP, you might be getting played.
Am I correct in assuming we're talking web images?

If you're speaking of hard prints.....then leave off the logo.

ArtistryImage wrote:
+1  I now request agreement and acceptance of at least one "clean" image for any creative test BEFORE I accept the assignment... Watermarks, branding, logos render an image virtually worthless for an agency level talent's book...

That said, if paid I would never request anything other than the agreed upon recompense... 

Having all team members on the same page BEFORE a session is the appropriate thing to do...

all the best on your journey...

studio36uk wrote:
You want a photographer to wave their right to be identified as the author and copyright owner and not to include appropriate copyright management information? Pay for the privilege. End of story.

Studio36

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.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
My bottom line:  Whatever two people agree to is their business & not mine.  If there are terms that may become an issue afterwards, it is the "potentially offended" party's responsibility to bring it up & resolve before an agreement is reached.


That being said, I have long felt that the typical TF* arrangement vastly favors the photographer:
...  The photographer alone retains the copyright.
...  The photographer chooses which images to be edited.
...  The photographer decides how each image is edited.
...  The photographer's watermark is often added to the image.
...  I have never seen a model's watermark -- why is that?
...  The photographer usually chooses the size & number of images provided.

So, I can see how a person might assume that the presence of a photographer's watermark can be construed as an inequitable arrangement.  But then, I'd refer you to my bottom line, above.

- The model has image rights and one person has to be responsible for copyright to avoid messiness on who 'owns' the images.
- If the model has time, I have sat down with the model and we have jointly chosen the images to be edited. they usually don't want to sit around for the time needed to select the images (usually takes longer then the shoot itself did)
- Since the model doesn't want to sit around while you are editing they are leaving that up to the photographer. Although I do know a few models that are really good with photoshop, I don't mind turning raw images over to them. On the flip side most of the models I work with have trouble understanding how the camera works, much less how to edit a photo.
- The watermark or logo is used to promote the photographer and to protect copyright.
- The model doesn't need a watermark, they have their image on the image, they have more legal rights with that then you do with the watermark.
- And that last is because usually the photographer is the one spending 4 hours editing for each hour of shooting.

Sounds like a fairly fair exchange to me.

But I keep my logo very discrete mostly for anti-copyright protection, but it is a mark saying I am proud enough of my work to put my mark on it. Same thing photographers have been doing for years. Pre-digital, they either stamped the back with contact information or some had a fancy logo stamp for the front of the picture or sometimes both. But only if under contract to shoot for someone else would they not put their logo on the print. much harder to remove from a print then a digital copy.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
...  I have never seen a model's watermark -- why is that?

I can provide an example since I know a model who does this with permission from the photographers. It's not a watermark, but his name.

If I posted the models profile, would that be considered outing?

Alternatively I spotted another model doing it on P.S. I could post that too.

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

no.

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.

I don't object to clean copies of physical prints. It is the "never mark anything" mindset that is bothersome. Of course there is no compulsion to place a mark on any particular work, but there is, equally, an absolute right to do so. That is the copyright owner's choice. They are free to waive that right.

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 ^^^

THE FOLLOWING PARTS REF:

17 USC §401(a) General Provisions and (c) Position of Notice
[note: the generality of the above statute is that the actual requirements, as they may be, are made by the copyright office by Regulation, as follows]

37 C.F.R. 201.20  Methods of affixation and positions of the copyright notice on various types of works. [in part, as follows]

"... Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. The following constitute examples of acceptable methods of affixation and positions of the copyright notice on various forms of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works:

"... Where a work is reproduced in two-dimensional copies, a notice affixed directly or by means of a label cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached durably, so as to withstand normal use, of [on?] the front or back of the copies, or to any backing, mounting, matting, framing, or other material to which the copies are durably attached, so as to withstand normal use, or in which they are permanently housed, is acceptable. ..."

---

RE: works made and delivered in only machine readable forms [emphasis in the following parts is mine]:

Works reproduced in machine-readable copies. For works reproduced in machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tapes or disks, punched cards, or the like, from which the work cannot ordinarily be visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or device, each of the following constitute examples of acceptable methods of affixation and position of notice: Works published in a form requiring the use of a machine or device for purposes of optical enlargement (such as film, filmstrips, slide films, and works published in any variety of microform) and works published in visually perceptible form but used in connection with optical scanning devices, are not within this category.
   
(1)    A notice embodied in the copies in machine-readable form in such a manner that on visually perceptible printouts it appears either with or near the title, or at the end of the work;
   
(2)    A notice that is displayed at the user's terminal at sign on;
   
(3)    A notice that is continuously on terminal display; or
   
(4)    A legible notice reproduced durably, so as to withstand normal use, on a gummed or other label securely affixed to the copies or to a box, reel, cartridge, cassette, or other container used as a permanent receptacle for the copies.

Studio36

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
The question wasn't whether watermarks are desirable or appropriate. The question was whether a watermark conveys the form of compensation of the shoot...which is the most absurd thing I've heard on here in a while.

I swear, just when I think idiocy can't go any further...

Didnt you get the memo? If the water mark is in the left corner, the photographer paid the model, if its in the right corner, the model paid the photographer.......

/end sarcasm

rfordphotos wrote:

Didnt you get the memo? If the water mark is in the left corner, the photographer paid the model, if its in the right corner, the model paid the photographer.......

/end sarcasm

What does it mean if it's in the middle? The escort paid?

;-)

Darren Brade wrote:
What does it mean if it's in the middle? The escort paid?

;-)

Nah. It means that the model's "manager" approved it.

Studio36

Cherrystone wrote:

There are good reasons other than "blazing", as you put it.  I place a small mark on web images. Do your homework, you might figure that out.

Do you always have to reply with such an attitude? If you would stop to read before you attempt to flame, you would see that I said in my post I give out a websized with a watermark and full res without.

If you were not always in such a hurry to attempt to flame others, which you usually fail miserably at, maybe you might learn something. Wish they would bring back soapbox so you could go troll in there again and leave the adult conversations to those who don't need to try to flame someone every time they post.

Ava Photography wrote:
One (of several) models objected, stating as basis for the objection the implication to third parties that the photographer paid the models

Rubbish.  Just a case of a low information model.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I have long felt that the typical TF* arrangement vastly favors the photographer:
...  The photographer alone retains the copyright.
...  The photographer chooses which images to be edited.
...  The photographer decides how each image is edited.
...  The photographer's watermark is often added to the image.
...  I have never seen a model's watermark -- why is that?
...  The photographer usually chooses the size & number of images provided.

Longwatcher wrote:
- The model has image rights and one person has to be responsible for copyright to avoid messiness on who 'owns' the images.

I agree that shared copyrights are a nightmare.  But a model has very limited usage rights, and typically she cannot profit from or license the image.

Longwatcher wrote:
- If the model has time, I have sat down with the model and we have jointly chosen the images to be edited. they usually don't want to sit around for the time needed to select the image (usually takes longer then the shoot itself did)

Good for you, but that's not typical, judging from the various threads initiated by models on the topic.  Also, I don't know about you, but my photo editing software can generate a page of thumbnails, each labeled by the filename.  That can be sufficient for models to choose images, yet each image would be 'way too small to be otherwise useful.  Who says the model has to be sitting besides you to make her choices?

Longwatcher wrote:
- Since the model doesn't want to sit around while you are editing they are leaving that up to the photographer. Although I do know a few models that are really good with photoshop, I don't mind turning raw images over to them. On the flip side most of the models I work with have trouble understanding how the camera works, much less how to edit a photo.

Again, I'll refer you to the various threads on the topic of "model wants RAW, unedited images".  The consensus is "no way should a photographer allow a model to edit an image". 

Longwatcher wrote:
- The watermark or logo is used to promote the photographer and to protect copyright.

What about the MUA, the stylist, and the model.  What do they get?

Longwatcher wrote:
- The model doesn't need a watermark, they have their image on the image, they have more legal rights with that then you do with the watermark.

"Wow!  Look at that beautiful model!  What's her name?  How can I contact her?

I'm just saying that watermarks are their to associate the photographer's name (and contact info) with an image -- why wouldn't that work for the model, too?  Why is the photographer the only one who gets credit?

Longwatcher wrote:
- And that last is because usually the photographer is the one spending 4 hours editing for each hour of shooting.

I know models who spend almost that amount of time prepping for a shoot, especially when they do their own makeup, shave those long legs, pluck those eyebrows, choose their wardrobe, etc. etc. etc. 

Longwatcher wrote:
Sounds like a fairly fair exchange to me.

I understand.  Many (I daresay most) agree with you.  I'm just one fellow who thinks that the photographer gets the lion's share of the deal.

Longwatcher wrote:
But I keep my logo very discrete mostly for anti-copyright protection, but it is a mark saying I am proud enough of my work to put my mark on it. Same thing photographers have been doing for years. Pre-digital, they either stamped the back with contact information or some had a fancy logo stamp for the front of the picture or sometimes both. But only if under contract to shoot for someone else would they not put their logo on the print. much harder to remove from a print then a digital copy.

Some logos are more discrete than others.

Models, MUAs, stylists, etc. can also be proud of their work.

Stamping on the back is 'way more discrete than a watermark within the image.

And you didn't address the impression I have that it is the photographer who gets to decide all the post-shoot decisions, including which images get edited, how they get edited, whether a watermark is added, what size, how much compression, whether the model can edit the images, and so forth.


I realize that I'm in the minority, and I realize that most TF* photographers will shout me down, but even with your relatively generous position, I still maintain that TF* sessions benefit photographers more.