larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I did some research and think I might have discovered (or at least been reminded of) a few details about watermarks that may inform the confusion around what is called a "watermark" today. This is from multiple sources and can be readily verified by those who seem always want to know about sources.

First...watermarks are historically not intended to be visible under ordinary usage of the medium where they are present. They are created not with any sort of pigmentation, but by making very localized changes in the substrate, not its content. Typical changes are to the density or reflectivity of the substrate.

Second...their primary intended function is to make original materials differentiable from copies of them. It is actually expected that copies will or may be made, but the absence of a watermark in the reproductions makes them easy to identify. Unfortunately, the ready availability of plain paper copiers makes the spoofing of originals much simpler...all that is necessary is to find similarly watermarked blank stock for use in making any copies.

Third...and perhaps most important...watermarks are not intended to be either obtrusive or visible. They are not intended to detract from the intended use of the document or item on which they are used. Watermsrking is not the same as stamping a document or artifact as a Sample, or as a Copy, or as For Internal Use, or with any other operational instruction. A stamp or intentionally superimposed, fully visible lettering should be used for tgat purpose.

To me, any superimposed signature or lettering on a photograph is distracting at best and tacky at worst. I would rather just not post an image than add markings to it. (And yes, I understand that chouce may not work for someone whose livelihood derives from photography.) Better to just post an image with severely crippled resolution. That choice also insures that customers will repeatedly be delighted when they receive images consistently better than the samples shown, like it used to be with proofs.

I realize that this is very much a minority position. It works for me, because I work for a very small audience, and I'm happy for any of them to have any of the images that I make. I'd never want them to have a defaced one, though.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That's the standard for paintings. I've never seen fine art photography shown in a museum or gallery with a watermark. If anything photographs are signed on the mat.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Contributing to the different standards may be that in general, paintings have tended to be larger than photographs. Paintings also don't necessarily get matted.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

WHAT????

There is nothing here that is even remotely "Perception" as you are trying to infer.

We are discussing a digital watermark and you have decided to throw in something about centuries old process of marking handmade paper. One is simply a piece of paper, which has nothing to do with art, a painting or a photograph, it is simply a piece of paper, but we are discussing a digital photograph. Try as you like, but these two things are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

I don't believe this discussion had anything to do with finished prints displayed in museums or galleries. Therefore, has little to no relevance to the discussions of a digital watermark on a photograph. I'm sure the OP was speaking of what to do to help protect their digital image from being copied/stolen, being an image that would be displayed somewhere online.

Any photo displayed in a gallery or museum, would of course, be the finished product of the photo and would not have a watermark and may or may not be signed by the photographer on the actual print.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The OP didn't say if he was referring to just the digital photo or to a print. Some photographers do put their signature on their prints. It's ridiculous that anyone would believe a watermark could protect their digital photo from being copied or stolen. Especially with today's software, removing a watermark is very easy.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That's what I do when I mat them.
If I put them on the web I usually add a signature watermark, unless the size I post is relatively small.
Then again, my intent is discouraging use, not eliminating it.
If someone took one of my images I'd think it was because they really liked it...
(I'm not in business to make money on them, it's a hobby, as is my website.)

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

It's not the fact that a watermark can be removed. The point is that one was put on a photo and someone then willfully removed it and used it for whatever reason. Now the owner of that image has a stronger case against the person who stole and removed the watermark, from that image. Hopefully that clears up any misconceptions about what is going on here.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think the reality for most of us is to ask how much we really care about someone using our images. It is expensive to file a lawsuit, it is expensive to pursue a lawsuit, and there is no assurance of winning a lawsuit. If you do find a lawyer who will take your case on a contingency basis, he is probably going to keep close to half of what you might win.

My dad, who is 97, is on a tear right now of filing something like six lawsuits against people who he thinks have wronged him, including doctors and caregivers. He's not claiming injury, just wronging. He has no cases and no one who is willing to testify on his behalf, but he is determined to proceed. My father-in-law is having similar thoughts.

I was peripherally involved in several legal matters while I was working as an engineer. Being "right" conveys no certainty of prevailing in these matters. It would be far better to exercise some restraint in publishing images, publishing them at resolutions that limit their usefulness, and taking any other avaiable concrete steps to prevent a usable image from entering circulation, if you really care. A person who steals your image for financial gain is going to be much better at getting away with it than you are at defending against it.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Digital images needs a different approach as those are not mounted. Although there is the metadata on the digital files, those also disappear when the file is printed. Hence the watermark/signature on the photo itself.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Digital photos can have a border instead of a mat iif that’s the right place for a signature.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

That is a good option.
Nevertheless, how the image is presented still depends on the whims of the owner or its purpose.

Harry02 Loc: Gardena, CA

Usually, I see it on the bottom left, and a signature on the right.
Longish while ago I knew a female landscaper, who'd put a small picture of a girl, usually fishing. near the bottom left. She sat on a copyright notice. I have seen pictures with the artist name somehow embedded in the image.
Getting a batch copyright of your works is easy and cheap. Yearly works for most.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

SO TRUE!