UXOEOD

I have noticed quite a few of the steady posters here go to great efforts to watermark their images. But, I have not seen anyone ever suggest to those who don't use watermarks, "Great image, what is needed is a rather intrusive and ugly watermark to make it complete!"

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. But I have seen so many wonderful images ruined my self induced grafetti. I believe in signing our work, but the image should seen and enjoyed, not your over inflated and under achieving ego.

If you have to wonder if you are guilty of over intrusive watermark, the very fact that you wonder is evidence that you are.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

The funny thing is that the people that have the most garish wm are the ones that have the least worries that someone would want to "steal" their snapshots...

Chefneil

I figure that at some point someone or a lot of someones will want to steal my work (I HOPE!) I know that my WM can be taken from my images, but there is hope that maybe my name can get out there.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

Start by copyrighting in your images right on your camera, which imbeds the copyright information right into the image history.

For the prolific photographer, register your copyright before your images are stolen. And, yes, WATERMARK all of your images, no matter where you publish them, or to whom you send them.

There was a topic posted in the last few days about stolen images being used for profitable sales.

For those of us that manage shoot those "WOW", saleable shots, we really don't want dishonest folks profiting from our work.

Professional photographers spend thousands of dollars on equipment, software, travel and marketing each year.

Do you think that they deserve to have their work stolen and used to make a profit by some lazy individual who trolls the Internet looking for shots to turn into chatzki's?

Quixdraw Loc: x

"Who steals my purse steals trash...." The Bard

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Agree with you 100 Percent.

UXOEOD

Joan, thank you for your comments, and for PROVING my point. Watermarking one's "WOW" images reminds me of a Grizzly Bear urinating on their kill. While it doesn't prevent a scavenger from stealing the profits of their efforts, it leaves a stench in the nostrils of all who passes, and a foul taste in the theif's mouth.

By the way, a Grizzly Bear will mark all it kills, it good ones as well the other ones. Reviewing you posted work, I see you too mark your world indiscriminately.

And if you are wondering, more than just my Proctologist have told me I am a perfect Ass. But, you have such nice images, it seems a waste to spoil them in an unwarranted fear of theft.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Agree with you 100 percent.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

A watermark was first created to prevent counterfeit in money then for advertising or to signal a source (faded logo by example) then to brand a type of paper. These are still used that way.

On a digital image watermarking is confused with 'signature'. Watermarks are more about taking the credit than protection as there so many methods to take those out it should never be considered as anything but a 'protection'.

If you try to sell fine art on line you need to offer credible samplings. There you have alternative methods like image cutting.

Still watermarking can be done on any photograph and be nearly invisible unless someone knows what to look for and where using PP tools.

I think you are confusing paranoia with ego here.

As to pet peeve, we all have ours.

UXOEOD

You mentioned "nearly invisible...", I specifically referred to intrusive and ugly watermarks. I suspect we are speaking of different animals completely. I, to repeat myself, believe in signing our work, but am annoyed and troubled by some confusing trashy self applied graffiti with a universal condom to protect their creative work from strangers screwing with there work.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

From Trey Ratcliff -

1) Watermarks look ugly. Whenever I look at a photo with a watermark, often times, ALL I can think about is that watermark! It’s so distracting. Also, I find that I begin to psycho-analyze the photographer based on their font choice. I can tell immediately if they are a cheesy wedding photographer or someone that has no sense of graphic design couth. Now, maybe this is just me. But I don’t want to spend any time thinking about the watermark. I just want to look at the image. And, conversely, I think this is what people want when they look at my images.

Full post here -
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2013/06/25/why-i-dont-use-watermarks/

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not call that watermark but 'stupid mark'.

We had a thread not long ago from a UHH user who was wondering why he was not selling any of his work on line (He did not specify if he was selling any directly). All his images in his web site were crossed off by two diagonal grey cross lines. You look at one then only see the grey lines so, unless you have abnormal thing for grey lines you skip the whole thing and move on.

That is what I call a stupid mark.

TheDman Loc: USA

Trey Ratcliff shouldn't be lecturing people on graphic design couth.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

ANY watermark is better than no watermark. Start with the copyright in the camera (yes it can be edited out but not easily and if it is, that just goes as proof of intent by the abuser. Secondly, if you put a common / regular watermark in the edge of the photo, while it too can be edited out, you can probably prove that the photo has been edited. After all, what are the odds that a photo was taken from that exact spot, at that exact time, with that exact lighting by two different photographers. (Now this doesn't count for studio shots where lighting etc. are more controlled. A shot of the Grand Canyon, a rocket launch or similar shots would be difficult to reproduce the exact conditions at different times from the same spot. So, if you compared the 2 images side by side and can prove that the watermark was edited off by trimming the photo, you've pretty much won the case. Having said all of this, the image will still need to be registered in order for the photographer to get monetary reimbursement. But, the photo doesn't have to be registered until the theft is discovered. The following is a direct quote from the US Gov copyright office. (The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.)

Here is the link for the complete tutorial.
http://copyright.gov/eco/eco-tutorial-standard.pdf

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Since the images being displayed aren't framed and hanging on a wall, the watermark is okay. There was a recent article about a photographer who had his image stolen from online and used in advertising. When he contacted the company, he was told that they take only images that aren't watermarked.

The presence of a watermark won't prevent someone from stealing and using it, but it's a start.