DON B Loc: RENO, NV

A quick question:

I notice some folks add watermarks or copyrights to their photos, some do not. What's the general feeling about the need for copyrighting photos posted?

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

I think that there's another long thread on this..

My feeling is that if your photos are so good that there is real worry about somebody stealing them at web resolutions, you have no business on a social Forum..

There is no reason not to put your small logo/name/initials on the bottom if you want folks to recognise your work though, rather than the very annoying smear across the center of the image..

In the end, it's a personal thing..

Hiskid.58 Loc: Erie, PA

I disagree. I want someone like that giving critiques to my images and I think others would agree. We don't put images up for sale here, we are looking for comments from others to help us improve and putting up some photos as good examples of what we're trying to explain.

ShakyShutter Loc: Arizona

This is where the "search" function would come in handy on this forum...

Everyone would benefit by having the copyright discussion available on the home page list at least.

DON B Loc: RENO, NV

Hi Larry ...

It's not whether someones pictures are so good ( I guess every once and awhile everybody gets a "keeper!) ... it's just the feeling of "violation" you get when somebody intrudes on your space, so to speak! I imagine that can happen.

HungryEye

Copyright is about money not authorship. Do not get the two confused. (Not saying you are) but... Money is the great equalizer. You know what talks and what walks!

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

I think that you guys are misinterpreting what I was trying to say.. However, I also think that you should feel flattered if somebody thought your image was good enough to copy rather than feel "violated".

However, the question was about the "need to put a watermark/copyright on an image"; not posting images for critique or sharing, or about the illegal use/theft of a copyrighted image, which they are at creation, with or without a watermark..

What I was saying is - Today's software and digital manipulation makes a watermark pasted across the face of an image superfluous.

A big watermark across an image degrades what the viewer is seeing and detracts greatly from viewing the image as it was intended, or being able to offer constructive criticism..

So, the real question should be: "Why do you want/need a big watermark?"

. Is it a commercial image of such high quality that it is in danger of being stolen by a competitor ?

. Are you attempting to look like a "professional" and you think that a big watermark does that?

. Are you sharing from a portfolio of your own stock images ?

I maintain that there is generally little need for such "protection" in social media at the resolutions found on the web; so watermarks or identification should be done tastefully (if done at all) and not obscure the actual image itself...

I do see validity in an identification name/mark/tag that others can use to identify the image as yours - far different than what I think is meant when we usually say "watermark"

Others may, of course, disagree... but the OP was about opinions, so feel free.

DON B Loc: RENO, NV

Actually, what prompted my question was that many images I've seen posted for whatever purpose on this sight were (are) quite good. What would prevent someone from copying an image and using it for personal reasons, say on his/her website, for example?

Perhaps the choice of "watermark" was not the best. I agree with you that those are quite annoying!

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

There is really nothing to stop such things.. It's probably done quite often, with or without watermarks.

some Sites that handle portfolios disable the "right click" function on images.. But mostly, website resolution keeps most images from being useful commercially.

This Site operates that way:
http://500px.com/LarryD

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

you automatically own the copyright to an image as soon as it's captured. registering it with the copyright office only makes it easier to enforce if there's an issue.

watermarks or signatures are a different matter entirely. watermarks are applied in an attempt to make the image unusable by anyone else, and signtatures are simply an artist's way of "crediting" his or her work.

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

most images posted on web forums are small, and usually at low resolution (72 DPI). an 800x600 image at 72 DPI is barely usable even for a 4x6 print; doing anything commercial with it is almost impossible. someone could copy it to their personal website, but there are ways to find that out, and take the appropriate steps. however, copyright law only really protects you from unauthorized *commercial* use of your photos. in other words, the person using them has to be using them for some purpose that provides financial gain. it's all about the money. if they're just displaying it, even if they claim it's theirs, they're not in violation of the copyright laws, though most will remove the offending image if you call them on it.

DON B Loc: RENO, NV

All good responses. Thanks for all your insights. :D

Lmarc Loc: Ojojona, Honduras

I agree with Squirl033. It's my understanding that when a work or art, literature, photography, etc., is created there is an automatic de facto legal copyright. If it's contested the person with the proof of creation has the legal advantage. Your meta-tags will show when you took the photo and with what camera, etc.

DON B Loc: RENO, NV

By meta-tags do you mean "in-camera (or SD card) info?

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

I disagree as well. This is not a social forum but a photographic forum geared to help beginners to learn photography. If you're so above the crowd why are you here?