Watermark on purchased pictures? Hi all, Curious about something. (been meaning to ask this, but been busy) Is it common for someone to put their watermark on purchased pictures? My...

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Hi all,
Curious about something. (been meaning to ask this, but been busy) Is it common for someone to put their watermark on purchased pictures? My wife had some pics taken of our daughter and I was annoyed to see the watermark on the pics we paid for. She doesn't remember if it was an option, and I was out of town.
Just wondering if this is standard?
Thanks,
Andy

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Sounds pretty standard from a pro photog. It's the way they copywrite their work. No legitimate printer will print copies of copy written photos.

Walt

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Whuff wrote:

Sounds pretty standard from a pro photog. It's the way they copywrite their work. No legitimate printer will print copies of copy written photos.

Walt

Thanks Walt,
Wasn't sure. We used to use a local photographer that we loved, but he moved away, and he didn't do that. She paid $90 for 2 5x7 and 8 wallet size. Which I thought was pricey, but I don't do it for a living. The quality was fine, just the watermark annoys me. But lots of things annoy me, so no big surprise there!

Andy
EDIT: I should of added, the company that took the pictures, also printed them, so not sure copywrite should of been an issue?

jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach

AndyCE wrote:

Thanks Walt, br Wasn't sure. We used to use a loc... (show quote)

I think the copyright is important in that case because of the cheapskates who would scan a printed photo in order to get more prints made.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Yeah, unless they use a really unintrusive watermark it really detracts from the image. I recall that all of our family photos from when I was a kid had them. Personally I don't like them so I never watermark my photos, but then again I'm not a pro.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

jkatpc wrote:

I think the copyright is important in that case because of the cheapskates who would scan a printed photo in order to get more prints made.

Yes, this is more of the situation I was thinking of.

Walt

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

jkatpc wrote:

I think the copyright is important in that case because of the cheapskates who would scan a printed photo in order to get more prints made.

Agree, I can understand that. Not something I had even thought of!
Thanks,
Andy

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Whuff wrote:

Yeah, unless they use a really unintrusive watermark it really detracts from the image. I recall that all of our family photos from when I was a kid had them. Personally I don't like them so I never watermark my photos, but then again I'm not a pro.

Walt

Exactly why I didn't make a big deal about it. I don't do it for a living, and not even close to being a pro. Was just used to the local guy that did an awesome job, and didn't watermark. I had never thought of scanning the photo, so that makes a lot of sense. The lady that did our wedding photos some years ago, didn't use a watermark either. I'm pretty sure this is my 1st case of having a watermark on purchased pics. The scanning thing make sense though.
Thank you!
Andy

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

In my opinion what your wife got were "Proofs" for her to decide which ones she wants to order. That is a common practice so people do not scan them or take pictures of the pictures. When you order a finished print, the watermark will not be present.

AndyCE wrote:

Hi all,
Curious about something. (been meaning to ask this, but been busy) Is it common for someone to put their watermark on purchased pictures? My wife had some pics taken of our daughter and I was annoyed to see the watermark on the pics we paid for. She doesn't remember if it was an option, and I was out of town.
Just wondering if this is standard?
Thanks,
Andy

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

AndyCE wrote:

Hi all,
Curious about something. (been meaning to ask this, but been busy) Is it common for someone to put their watermark on purchased pictures? My wife had some pics taken of our daughter and I was annoyed to see the watermark on the pics we paid for. She doesn't remember if it was an option, and I was out of town.
Just wondering if this is standard?
Thanks,
Andy

Although I am not a professional photographer, I believe this is standard. I have scanned a number of photographs (for my own personal use), taken in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s that had the studios name on the photo. Please note that the copyright would have expired many years ago, and the studio is most likely no longer in business. Having said that, there is no actual copyright notice, only the name of the photographer or the studio.

Many of the studios that take school photos, or sports photos do the same thing. Perhaps not all of them but many of them do.

I would not get too excited about it.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

There have been enquiries from Hobby/Amateur camera enthusiasts, asking how to add a watermark on their photographs, on this forum. So why should a Professional Photographer not add a watermark, to protect their livelihood.?

Bobbee

Proofs have watermarks, purchased prints do not. That is why you spend the money. For purchased prints my information goes on the back of the print.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

AndyCE wrote:

Hi all,
Curious about something. (been meaning to ask this, but been busy) Is it common for someone to put their watermark on purchased pictures? My wife had some pics taken of our daughter and I was annoyed to see the watermark on the pics we paid for. She doesn't remember if it was an option, and I was out of town.
Just wondering if this is standard?
Thanks,
Andy

That sounds awful. I've never seen that, although I have come across old, printed photos with the photographer's name stamped on the back. We've had several family shots done over the years, and there is no watermark on any of them.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Bobbee wrote:

Proofs have watermarks, purchased prints do not. That is why you spend the money. For purchased prints my information goes on the back of the print.

Exactly!

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Bobbee wrote:

Proofs have watermarks, purchased prints do not. That is why you spend the money. For purchased prints my information goes on the back of the print.

Well then I have a problem and will speak with the place that took the pictures. That is what I thought, purchased pictures should not have the watermark. I have dealt with proofs and understand the watermark on those, and the reason. I don't believe they should be on pictures you pay for, and we most certainly paid for these.
Thanks,
Andy