hogilbert

There are several members of the two photo clubs where I am also a member, who I consider gifted amateurs that watermark their photos. These are folks who may sell one piece in a blue moon and my get paid for shooting a friends wedding. They watermark to prevent someone using their photos without permission when they are posted on social media. At that skill level and photography not being a business I consider this an unnecessary affectation. Your thoughts?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I was wondering the other day about how much lint there was in my navel ...

al13

I just vacuumed mine.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I consider it Graffitti. The people that do it are more interested in themselves than their audiance.

If for commercial puposes the approach real artists use to place a small indistinct watermark as their signiture is all that is needed.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I like the idea...but i dont do it....too lazy...

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Paranoia seems to be very prevalent among photographers. I'm not sure why. You rarely ever see videographers or illustrators plastering their work with watermarks.

Vietnam Vet

its a way to advertise your work. If you take some pictures for someone and they post them on facebook your watermark can let others know you took them. Walmart and others will not print pictures from an image with a watermark on it.

repleo Loc: Boston

The watermark alone does nothing to protect copyright. You can't bring an action for breach of copyright in court without a certificate of registration from the Copyright Office (recent Supreme Court decision). However, if the image is registered, the watermark may help to increase the damages you can collect or may help potential customers to locate the copyright owner if they want to license the photo.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Sorry, don’t buy that. Copyright is default automatic. Regisyration is not required. If there is such a case please back ip your assertion with a link.

BTW: the watermark is not required for automatic copyright protection, so I agree it does nothing.

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

Totally agree. Pure newbieism.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

A properly dried print should have no watermarks.

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

He's right, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Registration will not only validate a claim, in the event that the unauthorized use is by a corporate entity, you can collect statutory damages which can amount to a very large amount of cash. There is a difference between what constitutes establishing copyright and what is necessary to properly defend it in litigation. Copyright is automatic, registration is important for recovery of damages. If you aren't an attorney specializing in intellectual property and copyright, you shouldn't be giving out wrong advice.

Where are your links to back up what you are stating?

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/

https://www.diyphotography.net/copyright-20-things-photographers-need-to-know-about-intellectual-property-law/

And this is a blog written by an attorney and photographer that is current and right on the money. I asked Reznicki about the notion you promote that copyright is automatic and registration is not necessary, and he was quite clear that if you want to make the maximum recovery, you had better have your work registered. And he had several cases that he cited.

http://thecopyrightzone.com/

repleo Loc: Boston

I wrote "You can't bring an action for breach of copyright in court without a certificate of registration from the Copyright Office". Copyright protection exists from the time the work is created and 'fixed' in a tangible form, but that doesn't do you much good if you can't sue for infringement of those rights.

If you need further assertion try:

Item on the Supreme Court decision:
http://thecopyrightzone.com/

Better still read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Copyright-Zone-Photographers-Artists/dp/1138022578

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Here is what your link says:

“DIYP: What is copyright and when does copyright come into effect for creative works?

Pixsy: Copyright is an exclusive right that is automatically assigned to the creator at the moment the work is created. It is defined as “a person’s exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell his or her original work of authorship”.

As a photographer, this means that the moment you capture an image, the copyright to that image belongs to you. The only exception to this is when you have a specific legal arrangement to take the photographs for somebody else (under a work for hire arrangement for example), but this must exist in advance or else a legally binding document must be created that transfers the copyright from the photographer, once they have captured the images.”

....
“Being able to provide the original file as well as the date the image was captured and published is usually sufficient evidence of copyright ownership.”

I am sure that lawers who make money off of copyright cases will make differing assertions. Keep in mind that there is usually a rightous lawyer on each side of every case.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

“Because copyright protection is automatic and vests as soon as work is created, an owner can register its copyright and then sue for infringement that occurred before registration.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/opinion-analysis-a-copyright-owner-cant-sue-for-infringement-before-the-register-has-processed-its-copyright-registration-application/