tommy2 Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

Does anyone else dislike the sometimes large (1/3 to 1/2 way across the image) white signature on a photo? That large amount of white captures my eye when first opening a photo taking away from the possible pleasure of seeing the image first.
Of course having that writing should prevent its unauthorized use.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I dislike it, BUT is is a deterrent for some to abscond with the image.
I dislike doing it, and wish it wasn't necessary, but.....
Saying that it is copyrighted just doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
I try to pick a color and size that is less obtrusive, with the best placement, which can probably be cropped out.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Deleted

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

How would we ever know today that a Picasso was a Picasso if he did not sign it? I'd guess that about 99% of the time artists sign their work. Photographers are artists, too.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I understand the need to protect intellectual and artistic property, which is getting ever more difficult to do. Our oldest studio photographs all have very tasteful, small imprints in a lower corner. I learned to sign my prints in pencil on the mat before framing. But I believe that an intrusive signature is unnecessarily distracting from an image. Most historic paintings are signed subtly. The purpose of a signature should be to identify the creator, NOT to say, "LOOK AT WHO I AM AND WHAT I DID!"

On one of the local Dallas television stations, we have a relatively new weather person who cannot open her mouth to speak without first uttering in a very strident voice, "This is CBS 11 meteorologist Anne Elise Parks with an update..." This has become so repetitious and annoying to us that we no longer watch that channel for our news and weather.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Putting a signature has the reverse of the intended effect. People do this to "protect" their images from unauthorized use. If you are doing this and posting your images on a public site, any high school or even middle school kid can work the image to remove a watermark if it is small. If it is large and obtrusive then it will obscure the image, and any potential buyers may just move on.

The point is that you are compromising sales by using a method of addressing unauthorized use by people who would not pay you for your work in any case. You are not deterring unauthorized use, but you may be deterring sales.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is a lot like software copy protection, especially in "the old days." Installation management methods today are generally pretty effective, but when it was introduced in the early 1980s, it was much less so. And while it did start to limit usage, it didn't really affect sales. Those who were willing to use a copy generally didn't rush out and buy a legitimate version just because they could no longer use a bootleg copy. And the really skill found a way around the copy protection.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yes. And some people could even circumvent hardware protection on game cartridges.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I have not tried it yet, but I wonder if PS's context aware fill would effectively remove a watermark. Anyone know or tried it?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

No it does not prevent anything, any signature is easily removed in pp, but you're absolutely right that a too large signature/watermark is very distracting!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Traditionally art photographs aren't signed in the image but on a border or matt.