Laura UnBound wrote:
Depends on who they are and whether or not it was appropriate to have your watermark on these images in the first place. For example, you dont watermark images for a models printed portfolio.

If theyre taking your watermark off before posting them all over facebook, its an issue.

You need to explain to them they are not allowed to be altering your images.

I very much agree with Laura.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Depends on who they are and whether or not it was appropriate to have your watermark on these images in the first place. For example, you dont watermark images for a models printed portfolio.

If theyre taking your watermark off before posting them all over facebook, its an issue.

You need to explain to them they are not allowed to be altering your images.

this might be true, but that doesn't mean the model/client should remove the watermark themselves.  always best to go back to the photographer and explain the need for having the watermark removed and then get a new copy from the photographer's original.

Loki Studio wrote:
Your license to use the images for clients and models needs to have a clause to prohibit editing and removal of the watermark.  Review this verbally with every client/model and you will all be happier.

I do this.  It's in one ear out the other sometimes.  Not with models but with the random first time clients.  They tend to think they own everything if their in it.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Depends on who they are and whether or not it was appropriate to have your watermark on these images in the first place. For example, you dont watermark images for a models printed portfolio.

If theyre taking your watermark off before posting them all over facebook, its an issue.

You need to explain to them they are not allowed to be altering your images.

THIS is all you need to know!

CHRISMDAY wrote:

I do this.  It's in one ear out the other sometimes.  Not with models but with the random first time clients.  They tend to think they own everything if their in it.

Scare them with a cease and desist letter if they continue, they'll get the picture 

silverystars wrote:

this might be true, but that doesn't mean the model/client should remove the watermark themselves.  always best to go back to the photographer and explain the need for having the watermark removed and then get a new copy from the photographer's original.

Of course. My thoughts were more along the lines with his use of the word "clients". If someone is hiring you for images, there are a lot of cases where you shouldnt be throwing a big watermark across the middle of them in the first place. But yes, they shouldnt be altering them (unless of course, they bought the images and the rights to them...)

291 wrote:
there are some cases where a photographer logo on an image can mean a right of passage based on showing they've worked with one of notoriety.  those cases are few and far between.  most all other cases the photographer logo on a modeling image is a sure fire sign of not understanding proper presentation.

as for image theft and thinking it's a safeguard, well, ford certainly doesn't think it's a problem in their presentation of models by not showing photographer logos.  then again, those shooting working models simply know plastering a logo on the photo would be an invitation to toss aside the image as an unworthy presentation.

Did you confuse this with a thread about "how models should submit to modeling agencies" again?

Yeah, I think you did.

To clarify:

1) Ford doesn't care about watermarks or copyrights because Ford doesn't own the copyrights. 

2) Most people on this site are NOT submitting their images to Ford or any other agency, which, I agree WOULD be put off by the presentation of an image with a watermark. But, since the VAST majority of images on this site are not being prepared for submission to Ford or any other agency, I think your point is irrelevant.  Thanks for sharing a totally irrelevant story, about a similar issue in a different circumstance but I don't think it properly informs the OP of anything. 

3) While many photographers (particularly those who primarily do agency-type work) do not use watermarks, I think most will acknowledge that watermarks DO serve a valuable purpose in helping to fight theft of intellectual property (or at least ensuring that a photographer is properly credited when his/her work IS stolen.)

4) This thread deals with models REMOVING watermarks.  I believe my earlier post addresses that, in large part.  In cases where the watermark does NOT contain a copyright notice, the photographer and model should agree to the relevant terms, in writing where possible, concerning how the image may be used and what, if any, rights the model has to alter/modify the images, as furnished to her.

Stephen Markman wrote:
Did you confuse this with a thread about "how models should submit to modeling agencies" again?

Yeah, I think you did.

no, i didn't.  logos on modeling images are not proper regardless of where they land, thus the issue of removal is moot.  the only thing the logo does on a modeling image is it says to the viewer, "look, i shot with a 'net photographer!"

291 wrote:

no, i didn't.  logos on modeling images are not proper regardless of where they land, thus the issue of removal is moot.  the only thing the logo does on a modeling image is it says to the viewer, "look, i shot with a 'net photographer!"

WAIT!!!!!  HOLD THE PRESSES!!!!!

Do you mean to suggest that there might be some "net photographers" (I'll adopt your term) here on MM?!?!

                 

The Gatekeepers really need to do a better job screening out the riff-raff. We don't want none of them stinkin' net photographers here on this site which is reserved, primarily, for esteemed agency photographers like yourself. 

Seriously, you need to chill with the agency talk.  This thread is not about agency submissions.  The OP didn't say he was shooting for models who were agency-signed.  In fact, I'd guess that less than 1% of this site's membership is shooting, with any regularity, with/through agencies. 

Your "Industry" tips are helpful in "industry" threads (on occasion) but it is not necessary for you to take a subject that has nothing to do with the "industry" and turn it into one.  And it CERTAINLY isn't necessary for you to talk about "net photographers" in a condescending manner, as if we are the lowest form of human life.  Net Photographers and net models are what this site is about.  Net models and Net photographers are, by far, the largest constituents on this site and your condescension regarding them is neither appreciated nor necessary.

And, from what I can see the only update to your portfolio in the past two years seems to be a "net"-type shoot (as I presume your September, 2011 shoot of a nude tattooed model was not done for a major agency or a major publication.)

I'm not telling you that you HAVE to watermark your net photographer shoots but you should probably acknowledge that many net photographers DO watermark their images and address your comments to those photographers, with the assumption that neither they nor their models have any desire to submit their images to Ford.

291 wrote:
there are some cases where a photographer logo on an image can mean a right of passage based on showing they've worked with one of notoriety.  those cases are few and far between.  most all other cases the photographer logo on a modeling image is a sure fire sign of not understanding proper presentation.

again, if you wish to discuss the work i present please do so privately.

Erlinda wrote:
When it comes to models cropping your watermark/retouching your photos it's a big no no. But if you are giving models photos that they can use in their book with watermarks on them then that is your fault and not doing the proper thing. Logo's do not go on photos that are being used for profile use (in a hard copy book) or when clients pay you to shoot them.

You don't see any ad campaign with the photographers logo on it do you? No, the client pays for the shoot and pays for the usage license. Never put your watermark on photos of paying clients. It's tacky and many will not be happy with it

You have a different position in France than I have in the UK or the other posters have in the US. Droits d’auteur in France are asserted automatically and are presumptively operating at all times, whereas in both the US and the UK there must be an actual assertion of the available rights... and if not asserted by notice they do not operate at all. Marking the image IS the notice. Depending on case law in any given jurisdiction the application of the notice generally must be made in such a way as it is visible without mechanical or electronic interventions. Therefore, in some places, even today and with digital images, EXIF metadata is NOT sufficient notice because EXIF data is only machine readable and does not appear, or is it visible, when the image is viewed. This is not the case in the US but it is likely the case in the UK that invisible [only machine readable] data not visible at the same time as the image is viewed, is no substitute at all for an otherwise required notice.

When dealing with actual physical prints it is possible to attach notice to the BACK of the print. With digital files there is no "back" on which to place the notice. Thus, for digital works the only place for the notice is on the face of the image... either on the image itself or on a selvage [a visible border].

In the pre-digital era when it was, up to a certain point in time, required for a copyright to be operable that a copyright notice be attached the three specific areas where such attachment must have been applied were a choice of the back, the face or a selvage. Even then, such as motion pictures, like modern digital works, had no "back" and also no "selvage" the choice, in that case, was limited to only the face of the work and that is where it always appeared.

Studio36

Hamza wrote:
Sometimes you have to Educate your client in order to not have misunderstandings in the future...

And sometimes you have to whack 'em with a stick to get their attention.  LOL

Studio36

CHRISMDAY wrote:

I do this.  It's in one ear out the other sometimes.  Not with models but with the random first time clients.  They tend to think they own everything if their in it.

Then you are not doing it right.  You have to clearly explain the value of your photography services.  It might go something like this:

"As we agreed, my proposal and quote of $500 for these photographs includes the photo shoot. and the use of the photos for 1 year only on your Facebook profile with no rights to edit or modify the image including cropping or removing the logo.  If you want to use the images for any other purposes or make your own edits or crop out my watermark it will be $10,000.  Which do you prefer?"

photoimager wrote:
Putting a logo on the image does not really protect your copyright but it can be good self-publicity.

I wonder how many of the people who think it necessary to mess an image up with a logo actually sell images ?

You have never been involved in an infringement suit. I can tell.

I thank God every time I get involved in one when my client has actually marked their work in some way.

No it doesn't prevent the thievery, people will steal anything, at any time, for any reason, but marking-up images and other works does make it infinitely easier to deal with it.

Studio36

VRM Photography wrote:
I like to give my client's two copies. I provide them with the high-res versions that they can print and use how they please (although it stipulates in the contract that they do not own the copyright nor do they have the right to modify, crop or alter the image in any way.) Then I also give them watermarked web sized versions for posting to social networking sites.

Ditto. This is exactly how I do it, watermarked for web, none for print (although sometimes I dont water mark at all). I think I see it this way, if my image is good enough to use, the model will give me credit.

studio36uk wrote:
You have never been involved in an infringement suit. I can tell.

I thank God every time I get involved in one when my client has actually marked their work in some way.

No it doesn't prevent the thievery, people will steal anything, at any time, for any reason, but marking-up images and other works does make it infinitely easier to deal with it.

Studio36

I have the raw files, I have the images taken directly before and after, all as raw files. No one else will have those. Therefore being able to prove that I took the photographs and not someone else would, I anticipate, be quite easy.

If I understand it correctly then, if I was Stateside registering the images through your copyright protection scheme would be the route to take, again no need for logos.

photoimager wrote:
I have the raw files, I have the images taken directly before and after, all as raw files. No one else will have those. Therefore being able to prove that I took the photographs and not someone else would, I anticipate, be quite easy.

No, you would be able to prove that you possess the RAW files of one or more images, not that you are the copyright owner. That, too, is exactly the problem, and it is well known as a problem, with the private copyright registration [timestamping] services in the UK - they can only prove that the images you register with them existed on a certain date NOT that you are the copyright owner.

You then have to put the alleged infringer on notice; and there is no infringement at all if they act promptly to cease and desist - unless they are on prior notice, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CAN YOU CLAIM THEY ACTED WILFULLY such as by removing your marks, because they will claim innocent infringement as a defence and be able to effectively walk away; only AFTER NOTICE if they do not remove, or cease using, the offending images may you then choose to go to the next stage, of engaging a specialist solicitor with an advising barrister to issue a letter before action ~1 to 2000£ ; then - conservatively for up to ~£8000 - to obtain an interim injunction and prepare an infringement suit; then a few more quid to put the suit into process which may include, or will have to include, a negotiation on settlement before you ever see a courtroom; it is likely that your solicitor and barrister will recommend binding arbitration before court because the courts expect that to be done and do not take kindly to a case if it is not done; only if that fails to produce a result then, IF you do get into court on it, you have a choice of proving your damages or the other side's profit because there are no statutory damages in British copyright law, for that you can not pull numbers out of thin air. Even when you're done, and even if you are successful, you may not see anything even approaching your costs awarded to you from a judgement-proof respondent [UK] / defendant [US]... ESPECIALLY if there is no proof of damages or profits but you instead rely on the courts to set an amount.

AND, if you are in the UK and they are not? You may as well just forget even trying to sue them, unless you have a really, really fat bank account.

The value in the marking of images is in the first few steps - the marks ARE actual notice; removing the marks prevents the other side from claiming the defence of innocent infringement; If the images are unmarked at the beginning you can NOT assert a separate cause of action for breach of moral rights, - which may be worth more than an infringement itself.., - and establishes a basis of damages differently from profit or loss as with infringement per se.

Been there, done that.... that is what I do, actually, as a copyright and licensing agent in the enforcement end of the/ my business.

photoimager wrote:
If I understand it correctly then, if I was Stateside registering the images through your copyright protection scheme would be the route to take, again no need for logos.

No, actually pretty much ditto the above with the exception that it would be easier to prove ownership and you might have statutory damages available. All the rest of it is going to look pretty much the same for an infringement.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The value in the marking of images is in the first few steps - the marks ARE constructive notice; removing the marks prevents the other side from claiming the defence of innocent infringement; If the images are unmarked at the beginning you can NOT assert a separate cause of action for breach of moral rights, - which, itself, may be worth more than an infringement itself.., - and establishes a basis of damages differently from profit or loss as with infringement per se.

Ah, that is what I had been missing, thanks. The way that some people have been commenting it was as though they thought that having their logo on the image prevented it from being able to be misused. Instead, you are saying that it proves the willful misuse by another person.

photoimager wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
The value in the marking of images is in the first few steps - the marks ARE constructive notice; removing the marks prevents the other side from claiming the defence of innocent infringement; If the images are unmarked at the beginning you can NOT assert a separate cause of action for breach of moral rights, - which, itself, may be worth more than an infringement itself.., - and establishes a basis of damages differently from profit or loss as with infringement per se.

Ah, that is what I had been missing, thanks. The way that some people have been commenting it was as though they thought that having their logo on the image prevented it from being able to be misused. Instead, you are saying that it proves the willful misuse by another person.

In a word? Yes! There is definitely a method to my madness in strongly recommending the marking-up of images.

And for readers in the US - it works exactly that same way in US law as well, because the same defence is available and the same defence can be defeated [neutered] by marking the images on the one hand and timely registering them on the other.

And it gets even better in both countries because wilful infringement in the course of a "for profit" business can be made out to be a criminal offence not only a civil case. A point touched on above by Stephen who is a practising US based attorney:

Stephen Markman wrote:
All debate about whether models are permitted to edit/modify/retouch . . .etc, aside, removal of copyright information (if that is what is contained in your watermark) is a civil AND a criminal offense.

Studio36

CHRISMDAY wrote:
What are you thoughts when a model/client removes your watermarks from images?  I have had a few problems in the past with people that shot with me based on the work I did for mutual friends.  Many people think that once they have the files they own and can crop or even badly photoshop them with filters.  Most of these clients are first time models that have no clue what a shoot is about and are often ill prepared thinking that they can just show up and it magically happens.

I think that's a damn good trick, since a watermark is stenography embedded in the image in such a way that it can't be removed.

But if you mean a logo or other stamp, they have a bit more freedom to modify than you may think, just so long as they do not attempt to sell the shot.