aellman Loc: Boston MA

In actual practice, the Patent Office solution provides you with roughly the same degree of
protection as passing a magic wand over each print. Wands are available in novelty stores and
from Amazon, which lists liquid fart spray as a related product, so consider that for protection too.

72dpi is a great idea. >>>Alan

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

There is also a program that puts a digital watermark in the file. That digital watermark (if I understand it) can not be seen with the naked eye. But it does generate a report about where the image has been used. The company is Digimarc. http://www.digimarc.com/solutions/photography
Please understand that I am not advocating this company but they seem to have a non-destructive solution that gives you the ability to go after photo thieves. The software works in Lightroom and some other programs and appears to be $99 for 3000 images. It generates a report for everywhere that image turns up so that you can go after the culprit.

kd7eir Loc: Tucson, AZ

You cannot patent a photo. Perhaps you meant copyright. Copyright carries a $35 fee per image.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I watermark most photos posted on the web, and reduce the size , so I do it all at once in Fastone Resizer

see attached

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

Any pixel level program, such as Photoshop, can remove a Watermark. Any exif program, such as ExifToolGUI can remove or change information stored in the exif data of the photo. So you need to not put anything other than low pixel count copies where anyone can get it.
You can get tricky and hide tiny watermarks in area(s) of a copy you sell. You could prove ownership in a court later on that way.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I use Lightroom for watermarking.

Alans844

Do a search photologo.com

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

OK, for those that keep saying that it won't protect your images, you are pretty much correct, but....those that want to "steal" images from the net, are not always savvy enough to know how to photoshop out a watermark that goes across the main part of the image. The builder that I'm using for my house was sued and lost, because he took an image from google images, and used it in his blog, watermark and all. Someone saw the watermark and notified the photographer. My builder is a nice guy, and in his words "didn't even consider that something on google images" was copywrited.

Secondly, the use of watermarks isn't always for protection from someone screen grabbing them. Sometimes, as in my case, if I give digital copies for people to share on facebook, I have them sign that the watermark is not to be removed. the main reason for this, is so people that like the image, know who shot the image, and know where to go for their own images.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I currently use Lightroom to watermark images.

In the past I used FastStone Photo Resizer.... a free software, to add watermark to images in batches (other things can be done at the same time.... such as resizing, adding a border, etc.) It's fast and easy, but added a step to my post-processing... so I was happy when watermarking was added to Lightroom a few versions ago. LR also can scale the watermark up or down in size to match different size images.

With FastStone you will need to create your watermark in another software, then tell FastStone to use it. You can set the size, transparency, add a shadow effect and more.

http://faststone.org/FSResizerDetail.htm

With Lightroom you also can create a watermark in other software, or can set up a rather simplified one in LR directly. It also allows you to adjust transparency, etc. LR can apply the watermark during batch RAW conversions (thus, saving an additional step with FastStone).

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Just a few facts about copyright protection.

A photograph with a copyright notice “©Photographer's name 2018” is sufficient as a declaration of copyright ownership with or without registration with the copyright office. Registration entails a fee and some paperwork and is only necessary and cost-effective in certain cases or circumstances.

Professional photographers or anyone who is doing photographic work by contract should include a clause in their contracts, work orders or invoices that specify their ownership, the fee, if any for transfer of ownership or whether or not the sale of the images/services include transfer of copyright to the client.

A photograph is considered by the courts, as a unique work of art or craft and the copyright is automatically property of the maker unless otherwise specified by contractual arrangement.

The Copyright Office is NOT the Patent Office. Patents do not apply to photographs, they usually apply to inventions and certain industrial designs. Securing a patent entails a search to determine if there are other pre-existing patents for the same invention and if the invention or design is indeed unique to the inventor. The patents are granted only after the research is completed.

If you are in the business of selling you images as art, stock photos, or do not want adverting, corporate or private clients or agencies to use certain of you images without your authorization and remuneration, it is wise to register them copyright for any specific image.

Once you place your images online you have very little or no real protection unless you actuality find your images published, reproduced or sold without your authorization and can prove this in court. Locks are for honest people and so are watermarks. As the say in the movies, “it's a jungle out there”, the Internet that is!

I have been in the photography business for over 50 years and have only taken clients to court on two occasion for unauthorized use or reproduction of my photographs. In both cases there was no big deal as per compensation. The judge ruled that the clients had to return all unauthorized copies to me and pay my fee for a like quantity of copies that I would have provided or would have charged for authorized usage or publication. In both cases I was additionally protected by the aforementioned contractual stipulations. In one case, it was an advertising agency that used my images beyond the contracted for limitation of use. The others case entailed portraits that were badly copied along with my signature. The copies were extremely poor representations of my work and my main interest was getting them out of circulation.

Patent, trademark, copyright and intercultural property law can be very complex and is a thriving industry within the legal profession. If you are selling your work and services, you should keep abreast of the current laws and amendments to these laws. There are a number of book published about photography and the law.

I am writing this because the OP used the term “secure”. The notice of copyright can be a watermark, a rubber stamped impression or label affixed to the back of a print, a notice printed on a transparency mount or a written signature on a portrait or display print. Theses are parts of the legalities but there is no automatic security. The photographer has to monitor his or her image usage and take action where it is indicated. Back in the day, photographic proofs and such were purposely defaced with a rubber stamped impression, an embossing, perforations or an overlay right on the face of the image. The word “PROOF” and a notice of copyright were plainly superimposed on the image rendering it it useless for any kind of reproduction. I am sure there are software methodologies that can create a similar deterrent.

I hope this helps.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Water marking does not really protect your photos, from thiefs. My granddaughter was marking her's and I tried to talk her out of it, and even edited a couple of her photos, removing her marks to show her how easy it is, but she has had photos stolen on line and will not stop marking...... First off, they can distract from the photo. And depending on where they are, they can be cropped out, or edited out..... You can not stop a thief. Only keep an honest person honest..... If you are worried about theft, just post your images online at 72 doing, and small. I sometimes add my signature to the bottom,. But very light, like an artist will sign a painting..... But not to stop theft.....my granddaughter found out it is very expensive to go after a thief.... She had an atty writet a letter to the thief to cease and dessist, and In this case it worked.

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

I'm pretty sure that just having a "copyright by..." statement in the metadata, and a copyright notice below the photo, is sufficient. If someone steals the photo you can show the court the original, with the date created, for comparison. That said, do you really want to go to the trouble and expense of a lawsuit? Personally, I would be flattered if one of my photos was used by someone else. I would then ask for credit, payment, or removal. I doubt suing would be worth the hassle and time unless it was a giant corporation, perhaps owned by our current POTUS, in which case somebody would have to try hard to convince me not to. :-)

DMGill Loc: Colorado

If you post on facebook, you have given permission to copy and reproduce. As has been said by Just Fred, posting in low resolution is some protection. I've been doing this but recently had a person proudly show me how much he liked a photo I had taken and posted for sale on my 'secure' website. He took a screenshot of the low res image and had it on his cell phone. SIGH!

IDguy Loc: Idaho

And, as per your first point, nearly any post processing software can just as easily clone out a watermark.

There are some methods to sorta lock digital files but I suspect they only affect the law abiding too.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

and a good looking watermark that is ;-)