Photobarker wrote:
For years I would put in the lower right corner my name, copyright, and year. I believe that doing so has hurt getting new clients because they don't want a name on the image, or have trouble getting them printed elsewhere. What is the norm now for ie. Senior Pictures
I think in the old days it was done so people could remember where they bought the photo in the first place if they wanted more printed nowadays most don't do it on the prints I don't. On the website is low-res image with the watermark. low-res they can't print very big if they tried to, and the watermarks don't really stop anybody from stealing they can be edited out. so it's really a matter of individual taste and what you want to do and who your clients are. I really don't think that people nowadays are going to copy a photo and reprint it over and over. It does happen but I believe in general most people are honest.
In businesses, you see more photos with the photographers name or business name for advertisement purposes. So......it also depends who the clients are. Commercial, yes, private no.
I shoot a lot of High School Sports. I post in VERY LOW res thumbnails of the games pictures with a watermark in the middle. The parents select the pictures they want to purchase. I send them a full size electronic file with only the company Logo in the lower left corner to use as they choose. It has worked well so far.
So, let's consider another real-life example. A UHH member just posted an image into the Photo Gallery where the image is somewhat "viral" on the internet and uses a subtle watermark:
Bruce the bald EagleSo, is it obvious from the comments of the original post and the watermark on the image who is the actual photographer of the image?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the photographer's copyright?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the UHH terms of use?
As the UHH member has found and posted & attached the image file, is UHH violating the actual photographer's copyright?
Should the original photographer have used a less subtle watermark?
Should the original photographer have allowed their work to exist on the internet in a way someone could obtain a relatively high resolution JPEG and post someplace outside the photographer's control?
CHG_CANON wrote:
So, let's consider another real-life example. A UHH member just posted an image into the Photo Gallery where the image is somewhat "viral" on the internet and uses a subtle watermark:
Bruce the bald EagleSo, is it obvious from the comments of the original post and the watermark on the image who is the actual photographer of the image?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the photographer's copyright?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the UHH terms of use?
As the UHH member has found and posted & attached the image file, is UHH violating the actual photographer's copyright?
Should the original photographer have used a less subtle watermark?
Should the original photographer have allowed their work to exist on the internet in a way someone could obtain a relatively high resolution JPEG and post someplace outside the photographer's control?
So, let's consider another real-life example. A UH... (
show quote)
A very good example of good use of a watermark from my point of view.
Personally I don't like them much, even when they are subtle (this one in particular I like the trasnparency but not the size and font, but is not distracting at least). But as you showed us with your example, you can never predict when an image will become as viral as this one.
And I guess almost no one would know who the picture was from without it.
CHG_CANON wrote:
So, let's consider another real-life example. A UHH member just posted an image into the Photo Gallery where the image is somewhat "viral" on the internet and uses a subtle watermark:
Bruce the bald EagleSo, is it obvious from the comments of the original post and the watermark on the image who is the actual photographer of the image?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the photographer's copyright?
Is it obvious the UHH member has violated the UHH terms of use?
As the UHH member has found and posted & attached the image file, is UHH violating the actual photographer's copyright?
Should the original photographer have used a less subtle watermark?
Should the original photographer have allowed their work to exist on the internet in a way someone could obtain a relatively high resolution JPEG and post someplace outside the photographer's control?
So, let's consider another real-life example. A UH... (
show quote)
Paul, I don't think bunko meant to do anything wrong (but he did, no doubt). I think he just saw a good photo and wanted to share it. You are correct, he should have done that with a link. I'm surprised the image was not deleted by moderator.
This is undoubtedly the way these things happen most of the time, by people not thinking about what they are doing, and should be more diligent......
And yes the photographer should also be more careful about posting,...... Sometimes we are too trusting and don't think...... Even I have full size photos on my way site, and others, instead of small ones.....I know it makes it easier for they...... Maybe I (I think I will) will change them....
My experience, I shoot sports photos, the players they are so eager to get their latest game images uploaded to some social media platform, they screen cap photos of themselves. The photos have "PROOF" and my copyright on them, of course proof is not displayed on purchased photos. I have a action shot and head shot available to the high school team I follow. Because of the need for speed few taken advantage of the offer.
Did most great painters and artists from the past sign their creations? I have never seen any of the wildlife painters in the modern era Not sign their work. So why would a Photographer not sign his or own creation? It’s been traditional for centuries.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.