What's in a name?
Aug 9, 2017 11:37:48 #
Buyers of photography like buyers of other artwork, pottery, painting,etc., feel the signature authenticates the work. I would feel that way too. I wouldn't want unsigned work no matter whose it was.
Aug 9, 2017 13:00:07 #
Aug 9, 2017 13:19:51 #
Martino
Loc: Northwest Florida
I think the references to 'putting a signature on the back' and 'as bad as a time stamp' just mean that that the commentators are not understanding that the world of images and publishing have moved on.
Yes, if someone wants a print of one of my photos and I choose to either give it to them or sell it to them, then I would certainly not put a copyright mark on the front - unless they specifically wanted it. I have provided images for many friends, companies and organizations - more often than not free - and certainly wouldn't add a copyright or signature.
However, if I am publishing an image on my blog, website, a photo display site (500px, Instagram etc) then I will place a mark. If someone the wants to use my image we'll discuss why, what the aim is, and where it will be shown. Then we can come to an arrangement either free or paid, to do so. Then we discuss the attribution or not as applicable.
To do otherwise is just allowing your work to be copied, changed, or displayed with no control. That's fine if you are feeling particularly altruistic and require neither payment nor recognition. How would you feel if you gave your work away for the greater good of mankind, but then found that someone was either passing off your work as their own, or making money out of it without your permission?
It's simple common sense, but that of course is the least 'common' element in the galaxy!
Yes, if someone wants a print of one of my photos and I choose to either give it to them or sell it to them, then I would certainly not put a copyright mark on the front - unless they specifically wanted it. I have provided images for many friends, companies and organizations - more often than not free - and certainly wouldn't add a copyright or signature.
However, if I am publishing an image on my blog, website, a photo display site (500px, Instagram etc) then I will place a mark. If someone the wants to use my image we'll discuss why, what the aim is, and where it will be shown. Then we can come to an arrangement either free or paid, to do so. Then we discuss the attribution or not as applicable.
To do otherwise is just allowing your work to be copied, changed, or displayed with no control. That's fine if you are feeling particularly altruistic and require neither payment nor recognition. How would you feel if you gave your work away for the greater good of mankind, but then found that someone was either passing off your work as their own, or making money out of it without your permission?
It's simple common sense, but that of course is the least 'common' element in the galaxy!
Aug 9, 2017 13:29:12 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I "watermark" all my proof images, so that when they're stolen and used without my permission, at least I get some "free advertising" out of them.
(Note: above is an older image, with an old, now defunct URL... one of the problems with watermarking that way is having to go back update everything posted online!)
I "sign" much of the finished work I sell... it's kept small and unobtrusive, scaled to the end use of the image.
I DO NOT sign or watermark images sold for commercial or editorial usage. That's inappropriate. I request and a publisher might give photo credit alongside an image used in an editorial manner. Commercial users normally do not give a photo credit. They're paying a premium price for use of the image... so I guess that's fair.
Beware of anyone offering "a photo credit" in lieu of payment for use of one of your images. That's rather common practice, but actually is a rip off. I have yet to find a landlord who will accept "photo credits" as payment of rent.... or a grocery store that let's me buy food or a gas station that offers fill-ups for photo credits. The "buyer" is appealing to your ego and preying upon your naivete, offering only a photo credit.
(Note: above is an older image, with an old, now defunct URL... one of the problems with watermarking that way is having to go back update everything posted online!)
I "sign" much of the finished work I sell... it's kept small and unobtrusive, scaled to the end use of the image.
I DO NOT sign or watermark images sold for commercial or editorial usage. That's inappropriate. I request and a publisher might give photo credit alongside an image used in an editorial manner. Commercial users normally do not give a photo credit. They're paying a premium price for use of the image... so I guess that's fair.
Beware of anyone offering "a photo credit" in lieu of payment for use of one of your images. That's rather common practice, but actually is a rip off. I have yet to find a landlord who will accept "photo credits" as payment of rent.... or a grocery store that let's me buy food or a gas station that offers fill-ups for photo credits. The "buyer" is appealing to your ego and preying upon your naivete, offering only a photo credit.
Aug 9, 2017 13:30:27 #
Hey burkphoto .........Please explain why this is an incorrect answer?
"The artist's signature has become a key ingredient in the art-making process—it signifies that the artwork is finished, and that the artist is satisfied."
Why cant it be this simple? forget the web, copyright or being a Professional ......giving away the photo or selling it.
Art being such a personal expression ..... What other reason could there be?
The artist signature signifies that the artwork is finished, and that the artist is satisfied.
Lets not over think this simple act........it all so very personal........ if you don't want to sign your work ...... don't
When I make a print and sign it I do it for me and no one else.
The other day I was showing a friend 3 prints I made of the same file they were all a little different ......I had signed only one my fav.
My friend said wow that's nice can I have a copy ..........I gave him the one I approved and signed.
Pride approval and a job well done what other reason is there for signing a photo?
Why would you not want to sign something you made? Its a time honored tradition one should feel proud to be a part of.
It should be said I'm not talking about GIANT WATERMARKS... they are for copyright protection and have nothing to do with signing ones work
"The artist's signature has become a key ingredient in the art-making process—it signifies that the artwork is finished, and that the artist is satisfied."
Why cant it be this simple? forget the web, copyright or being a Professional ......giving away the photo or selling it.
Art being such a personal expression ..... What other reason could there be?
The artist signature signifies that the artwork is finished, and that the artist is satisfied.
Lets not over think this simple act........it all so very personal........ if you don't want to sign your work ...... don't
When I make a print and sign it I do it for me and no one else.
The other day I was showing a friend 3 prints I made of the same file they were all a little different ......I had signed only one my fav.
My friend said wow that's nice can I have a copy ..........I gave him the one I approved and signed.
Pride approval and a job well done what other reason is there for signing a photo?
Why would you not want to sign something you made? Its a time honored tradition one should feel proud to be a part of.
It should be said I'm not talking about GIANT WATERMARKS... they are for copyright protection and have nothing to do with signing ones work
Aug 9, 2017 13:43:36 #
gvarner wrote:
If you're not a pro, does showing your name on a photo make it a better photo? Or does it mean you're a pro?
No, it doesn't mean you are a pro! I do it occasionally when I think my photo is unusual or very different from others taken in the same venue.
Aug 9, 2017 13:47:32 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
burkphoto wrote:
No.
No.
All it means is, "This is mine." Now, if you add (c) 2017 [Your Name Here], that adds some practical protection.
Being a professional photographer means you derive most of your income from photography. Just loving it means you are an amateur (the root word of amateur is amo, amas, amat... Latin for the verb, love).
Ideally if you are a professional, you are also an amateur. It's not fun to dislike your job.
No.
All it means is, "This is mine." Now, if you add (c) 2017 [Your Name Here], that adds some practical protection.
Being a professional photographer means you derive most of your income from photography. Just loving it means you are an amateur (the root word of amateur is amo, amas, amat... Latin for the verb, love).
Ideally if you are a professional, you are also an amateur. It's not fun to dislike your job.
Aug 9, 2017 13:48:57 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Could be a source of pride or a property claim as a copyrighted image. I see it as an object to respect for the effort and the results.
Aug 9, 2017 15:27:41 #
Aug 9, 2017 15:33:39 #
Aug 9, 2017 15:42:47 #
Aug 9, 2017 16:10:02 #
Aug 9, 2017 16:26:56 #
radiojohn wrote:
Why not put it on the back?
...if I sign any of my pieces it's on the back anymore. What's wrong with that?
Aug 9, 2017 16:49:33 #
I think "significant amount" Is a relative term. My husband is a retired Pharmaceutical analyst for a Hedge Fund. I and my partner owned an accounting company and a Financial Planning Company. We sold both two years ago. Some people think we have a lot of money. We know people who know we don't.
Aug 10, 2017 09:25:39 #
"Proud of" is great and you should be, but is the displaying of the photo all about you or the image itself?
That's why you won't see me paying extra for a shirt with the brand name in huge letters across the front. At least not until the head of that company wears a shirt with my name on it. It's a con.
They should charge you less for becoming a walking ad for their brand. Maybe some would think the same way about a photo with your name overpart of the picture?
That's why you won't see me paying extra for a shirt with the brand name in huge letters across the front. At least not until the head of that company wears a shirt with my name on it. It's a con.
They should charge you less for becoming a walking ad for their brand. Maybe some would think the same way about a photo with your name overpart of the picture?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.