Nico Simon Princely wrote:

Hit.. Dogs..





LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..

udor wrote:

I know a few very well known photographers, whose watermark is quite big (one of them, the initials occupy almost 1/4 of the image) and their work is outstandingly stunning...

So... dunno about your assumption... but it's still a fun thought...

You know full well they're the exceptions, not the rule..

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
what I don't know doesn't hurt me.

That is exactly what I thought. Until two very good IP lawyers explained case law to me. If there are existing infringements and suddenly you have to pursue a large case in court, you are at a serious disadvantage. Undefended infringements weaken your copyright status.

Not going after an infringement and defending your rights may mean you give up the right. You loose the strength of your future actions. That's one reason why some companies are so hard nose about trademarks, it also applies to copyright.

Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?

Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?

Discuss!

Small watermarks ID the work but are usually easy to remove.
Big, obnoxious watermarks help to protect the image from being used without permission.


How many who have small watermarks have had their images swiped?
How many who have big watermarks have had their work swiped?

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

That is exactly what I thought. Until two very good IP lawyers explained case law to me. If there are existing infringements and suddenly you have to pursue a large case in court, you are at a serious disadvantage. Undefended infringements weaken your copyright status.

Not going after an infringement and defending your rights may mean you give up the right. You loose the strength of your future actions. That's one reason why some companies are so hard nose about trademarks, it also applies to copyright.

+1

This is why I watermark some images. I use invisible watermarking in just about everything

hartcons wrote:
i think the fine art guys see the watermark as part of the design more than something to prevent theft. for my part i just shoot soft porn (or so i'm told) so who cares about the design? lol.

I think you're wrong......on the first part.

CRUIKSHANK PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
A watermark or logo is more important to me as a branding tool than a theft prevention tool. I'm a new photographer so my pics arent great but I do understand the importance of a good branding strategy when building a business. At the same time, we are selling photos not tshirts so a big watermark placed diagonally across a photo doesn't have the same effect as the nike swoosh did on athletic apparel. You have to have a good logo or watermark and you have to know when and where to use it. Facebook: watermark the shit out of everything because Facebook retains rights to anything posted, MM: put your logo on it so your pics can be promoted through other peoples ports and lists, personal website: no need, people already know who's pics they are looking at and your site and it's contents should all be copyrighted anyway.   At least those are my thoughts.

As you said, you are new.

The people who will want to use/hire you will find you despite the watermarks, and in many cases, will *NOT* seek you out if you have a huge watermark.  Why?  Because it implies an ego issue, a control issue, an issue with team work and understanding the purpose of the images.  The images are *NOT* for you, they are for others, and huge watermarks fly in the face of that.

The best photographers in the world, through "history" (as short as that might actually be) survived on a small by line next to the photos, or a tag line at the end.  NOT by putting their watermark in the image.

If you are a photographer, and have a style, and do a lot of SHOOTING (images, not your mouth off) it's amazing how work comes to you, with or without watermarks, and without "branding".  Your style is your brand, your attitude and availability is your brand.  It's not a logo/watermark.

But your mileage may vary.

BodyartBabes wrote:

The best photographers in the world, through "history" (as short as that might actually be) survived on a small by line next to the photos, or a tag line at the end.  NOT by putting their watermark in the image.

History is irrelevant.....those through "history" were not posting on the internet.

DBVE Imaging wrote:
I thought a watermark was a very small, semi-transparent mark to identify the creator, usually in the bottom corner, and almost never seen.  Arent you talking about logos?

+1

This is what I understand 'watermark' to mean as well. Hence my post explaining my earlier use of "logo's" and my current watermarking of my copyright   This is my approach, because I don't like distracting from the image itself. Either it's crappy or it's not, y'know? Lol!


IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

Farenell Photography wrote:
Its the web & people steal shit (& randomly repost it elsewhere).

If people want to view the work w/o those "unsightly" watermarks, I'm sure the photographer will sell you a hard copy print for a small fee.

+1  My position, exactly. My Business Model is the Licencing Model, but I shoot a lot of tests & creatives. My entire workflow is a for-print workflow however, and honestly my 8-bit for-web jpegs are nothing like my 16-bit TIFF print-files. Or prints themselves. I comp from my shoots with a handful of web-images only...plus, one print. Non-watermarked. If I shoot with a talent unpaid, their always welcome to order a print or two from the shoot from me, non-watermarked, at a very competitive cost (I do weekly runs, to reduce costs of time-wasted running around). I'm happy, because I'm not robbing myself by giving away high-res work unpaid in cash.

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Once an image goes on the web it's fair game for anybody to steal, pass off, copy... whatever... Images I put on the web are effectively throwaway advertising materials to me, nothing more.[/b]

This is close to my take on it.

I'd guess that my goals are different than most people in this thread, but as an artist, I sign everything I put online (assuming I own copyright) - photos, paintings, cartoons, etc. And then I release it with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License.

I assume that, at some point, someone is going to lift my stuff. They might take the time to edit out the small signature on the piece, but they might not. If they don't, then I encourage them to replicate and share it. It's free advertising, and the act itself is unlikely to do any harm if I've already posted it online (and if you search "Edeline Wrigh" on Google, you'll find me easily). I don't think the majority of online users who break copyright are doing it with malicious intent, and especially if the mark is small, I don't think most of them are going to go to the trouble of editing it out.

This does still leave the problem of people editing the things I post or attempting to use them commercially, but I don't think either of these concerns are great enough to warrant overly disrupting the image (pretending that the quality of my stuff was high enough that this would be an actual possibility).

My hope is that encouraging people to duplicate my work, and thus my name, on the internet will help me build an audience.

IMagus Digital Fine Art wrote:
oh I don't agree at all - it's not the size of your watermark but what you do with it that counts. 

This example is different though, I would say. It's not a photograph so much, but rather digital artistry. That's just my personal take on it, however. Does this makes sense to you/anyone?


IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://www.dbiphotography.com/

ChiaraScura wrote:
This may be slightly OT, but, let's say someone IS able to lift one of your images and erase the WM, if there is one. If it's a low-res image (600-700px on the long side), how much damage can they do with it?

Not being sarcastic or anything, I am genuinely curious.

This was my thinking as well, and why my w/m kept shrinking and getting fainter. Ideally, my target-market isn't one that cares much for low-res online images. So if someone reefs my images that are web-sized, boo hoo. They can use them to do what, entice clients I couldn't care less about anyhow? Furthermore, jpegs look like ass compared to printed TIFFs etc anyhow, and my goal would be to use the web-pix to entice a sit-down to look over my book. My watermark is to sign my stuff, to act as a *mild* deterrent, and to give an identifiable name on my images. Who the hell wants to chase after models/others to write a credit-line under/with the image? Who the hell LOOKS to see who credited it? Not very often does someone go hunting when the author isn't readily noted. Not very many ppl care enough.

~D

ChiaraScura wrote:
This may be slightly OT, but, let's say someone IS able to lift one of your images and erase the WM, if there is one. If it's a low-res image (600-700px on the long side), how much damage can they do with it?

Not being sarcastic or anything, I am genuinely curious.

When I shot weddings, a photographer copied every image on my site and used them in his online portfolio.  I only found out about it after one of my wedding clients somehow came across her photos on this fellow's website.  I had the photos removed but didn't pursue it further.  I later heard he was sued by several of his own wedding clients for doing an incompetent job on their weddings.

I now shoot a lot of senior photos.  It was extremely common to discover my clients had printed the images from their online galleries and, in one case, even had a huge banner made for a graduation party.  The one with the banner never bought any prints, just stole the images, lol.

Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?

Not too much. It's a syndrome that cuts across all skill levels.

rp_photo wrote:
The bigger the watermark, the more likely the photographer sees themself as "the next big thing" and has a "magazine".

I dont have a 'magazine' and I am far from being the 'next Big Thing ' either ..... Don't care to be either

Escalante wrote:
Yes Watermarks Can be Annoying and can Seriously serve as a 'Shitty Work Barometer '.....

The Bigger the Watermark the Crappier the Work , I agree ...
Perfect example ...

Non-invasive watermarks don't count. It has to obscure parts of the subject with no attempt at smart placement.

Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?

Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?

Discuss!

One of the biggest watermarks I've seen is a fantastic photographer.  But he placed them carefully, and seems to have stopped.

Someone I ran across recently has a watermark that pretty much hides the subject of the image.

Wonderhussy wrote:
Does anyone notice a correlation between the size of a photographer's watermark and the quality of his work?

Is this akin to the "guys who drive big trucks" rule?

Discuss!

tl:dr thread
I think it has more to do with "poor placement" rather than "size".