bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

OK first, for those that don't actually do portrait work.
We are not just selling ink and paper, just as painters aren't just charging for the paint and canvas. We are charging for the artistic work we do. We are selling home décor, portraits of people as art to be hung on the wall.

I don't even try to put it as "cover the cost of insurance, overhead, etc." To me, it is MUCH more than that.

Those that snap 200 images and hand over a disk are not what I'm talking about. I mean someone who understands that there is only one Mona Lisa. Not talking about the person handing someone hundreds of files on a disk for you to find something "that will work," isn't the same as someone really trying to do a service for their clients.

So, if you are working with someone who spent years honing their craft, spends tons of time planning, setting up, and executing the actual capture, then spends more time editing after the fact, not just using a "one click" fix all plug in, then yes, you should expect them to sign their work either by hand, or by digital mark.

Even Olan Mills studios had those cheesy gold foil stamps on the corners of everything, clear down to wallet size, and everyone just accepted it. Now, because people "can" copy and reprint photos, they are bothered by someone marking their work? I think those that are the most upset, are probably the first ones to be scanning and trying to make reprints.

Just my 2 cents.

tbetress Loc: Skippack, Pa

If I read this correct, I would think that "PURCHASED" pictures should not have a watermark on the picture itself (it may be on the back of the print.

tbetress Loc: Skippack, Pa

If i'm reading this correct, I would expect no copyright watermark on the front of a "PURCHASED" photo, only on proofs. They may put something on the back of purchased photos I would think.

RRS Loc: Not sure

It sounds like your looking for someone to agree with your concerns. Do you mean watermark or a printed advertisement, in the lower left or right side of the finished print. There is a difference, does this watermark go across the peoples image on the print. Look at paintings, the artist signs them. The canvas prints that go out of here all have my name on the print and it is done in such a way that it's not obtrusive to the viewer, usually done in a color that blends with the colors around it. You did not get "proofs"!

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

You are absolutely correct. Usually, if someone has a problem with a watermark, then they can sign legal documents restricting the copying or reproducing the photographers work. If they don't like the watermark or signing the legal document which protects the value of the photograph that they want to purchase, then probably, they have other issues in mind. If you research copyright law, you will find that the photographer / artist is required to be able to show an effort to protect his/her work. My effort is that which I have stated. My income is based on my ability to sell and resell the results of my photography efforts. I really don't need to do business with people that want to try to get something for nothing. I have enough customers (many repeat customers) that rely on my images. And I do quite a bit of real estate photography and it has been my experience with realtors that those that deal with "high end" real estate are less inclined to try to rip off the photographer that was hired to shoot the property than the realtor that says, "I have a point and shoot (or my own dslr with that 50mm lens it came with) and I am going to take a couple of pics for the multi-listing". My customers have state that good images have A: increased traffic on their properties by 25-50% and B: have increased the actual selling price by 10%, which more than covers my shooting fees. And, all of those are watermarked. It is cheap advertising for me and also, according to the realtors, shows potential clients that they care about their product enough to have good photography done.

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I don't think I am. I'm getting mixed replies. Some saying it should be on there, others saying it shouldn't. As I said, this (I'm 99%) sure is the 1st time I've seen a watermark, on the front of a purchased picture. It's not on the face, it is in the bottom right hand corner, but the name is somewhat long. Personally, I don't think I should get a watermark on a pic I paid for, however I can certainly see both sides of the issue with the scanning thing. The experience I've had in the past, is the pics are posted to a website, very low res, we pick the ones we want, pay and pick them up with no watermark. I was out of town, so not sure what the wife actually did.
Thanks,
Andy

Gildersleeve

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be happy to have the watermark of Ansel Adams on my portrait!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is standard practice:

Say you hire me to shoot an event or person(s). I'll charge you a shoot fee or sitting fee and afterward will provide you with proof files or proof prints, at no additional charge.

Those smaller proof files are always watermarked in an obtrusive manner so that the images cannot be misused. Proofs are only lightly and rapidly processed, are only provided to clients to make their selections.

Finished, full size images are then ordered, usually at additional cost (sometimes a shoot fee includes some package of prints or similar)....

For private party clients like yourself or for fine art purposes the finished images don't get watermarked, but typically do get "signed" in some relatively unobtrusive way.

Watermark example:


Signature example:


For commercial or editorial usage, proofs might be watermarked, but finished images normally aren't marked or signed in any way. Usage is licensed and a photo credit is requested. That credit is typically provided with editorial usage.... but not for advertising and some other commercial usage (but they pay a much higher price for usage, too).

RRS Loc: Not sure

Andy, I did the picture taking for over 25 years as a working professional. I even had people have copies done of my work and send them to me as Christmas cards, not good! What you describe does not sound like a watermark but the name of the photographer or studio that did the work. If I saw the print in your house and I liked it I would be inclined to seek out that studio for similar type work. Is it the money, 2 5x7's and and 8x10 for $90.00 or the advertising that you object to? Was the shoot done in a studio or outside with additional lighting, could you do the same shot with your equipment and knowledge of photography or was this a gift for you. Are the pictures that you had done in the past as good as what you have now? Was this done by what some might call a "high end" studio? There's a difference between Sears, Penny's and a photography studio. I hope you get the satisfaction you seek, keep us posted.

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

Way back in the 70's I had a client who took all the proofs and had them copied, and then he the gall to brag to me about it. Needless to say, I didn't get any print orders from him. That was before we could watermark our pictures.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Many of us consider it sleazy and it uglifies the photo.

bickfor903

On proofs it's OK. On purchased prints, it's not. The prints become the purchaser's property. Old photographs often had "watermarks" because they were etched into the negatives. The technology is a bit more advanced now…

drucker Loc: Oregon

Let's clarify what copyright means — At the point a photograph is taken, the photographer holds the copyright and has total rights to the image, limited only by any rights imposed by the subject. Obtaining proper permissions to take and use/sell the resulting photograph is another subject. This is true of any creative original "work" that is covered by copyright law.

Those rights are retained by the copyright holder for the duration of the copyright unless expressly transferred to another person or released to the public domain.

Thus the copyright holder has the right to reproduce the copyrighted material in any manner and with any markings they see fit. Actual practice will vary by personal practice and marketing considerations. You may be the subject of the image but your rights only go as far as you have directly negotiated for use of the image. That may be as simple as purchasing prints made from the image and marked as the photographers' practice may be or as mentioned previously in this thread, purchasing the rights to the image outright for use in any fashion you wish.

Printers, have to be especially careful in that if we reproduce copyrighted material without proper permissions, we are just as liable as the person ordering the printing. Thus, if there is any question about the source of any text, art or photos in something we are printing, we will request documentation that proper permissions have been obtained. That can cause problems and maybe even the loss of the job.

One we run into are prints from "Olan Mills." One of Olan Mills' products was providing a pictorial directory for a church or organization by having the privilege of taking the photos and offering prints of those photos to the members in a controlled setting. It was a booming business before the advent of digital photography. Those prints come with a gold foil imprint on the front. When asked if they have permission to reproduce the photo, our customer's usual reaction is, "Why, it's a picture of me and I paid them for it?" At that point we just pull out the Olen Mills contact information — there will be no problem getting permission, you just have to jump through the hoops!

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I had the same thing happen to me. I shot the Wedding, Reception, rehearsal and rehearsal dinner, 25 rolls of 36 exposure film and processing, gave them the 3x5 proofs to look at and they duplicated them and didn't purchase anything from me. So as soon as I could, I started copyrighting everything. Now, they only way that you get anything from me without a copyright in the lower right corner (and imbedded in the metadata) is by signing a legal document agreeing to the inferred copyright listing a description of the images and their sequence numbers. If they don't agree, then they don't get anything. I don't need their business so bad that I can afford to have them steal from me.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

So I guess we should all go back and ask the old masters to remove their names from their portraits? Just because it is paint on canvas, and not ink on canvas, or paper, it is still art. I think it is the cavalier attitude of even some photographers, that belittles the whole industry.

Most of us never stop studying and trying to grow. Isn't that worth the right to sign our name to our work?