markwilliam1

Pure Ego just as I thought! I’ve seen images like this and can’t believe anyone would buy them.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I don't even know why a signature, trademark, logo, or copyright notice digitally superimposed somewhere on a print or in a digital image is called a "watermark". An actual watermark appears on fine stationery (writing paper) and can only be seen when transilluminated. It may be a trademark of the paper manufacturer (Strathmore etc.) a corporate logo or name, or a family crest, etc. It's kind of a prestige thing.

By the way. the law society in my area has this to say- it is also published online and the linked article herein:

"Watermarks for pictures are not the objects of legal protection, because it is possible to find hundreds of thousands of “clean” images on the web and mark them with your own signs".

As far as signatures are concerned, I don't think there are any rules or strict or uniform standards imposed by galleries, etc. It is a matter of common sense and appropriateness and is up to the individual photographer and there na markets.

Fine photographic portrats or paintings are often signed by the artist or maker. I have signed a mortgage for years. If I forget to sign one, the client will usually ask that it be signed. I am no celebrity or famous photographer but this is what I do and why I have found to work. It seems appropriate on large canvas prints in formal frames, etc, and a 1-inch signature on a 30x40 image is not gonn be a distraction. No ego is involved. A craftsman/woman should haveis a trademark on his or her work- this is my philosophy! The same goes for fine art prints of any subject. There are many ways to distract from or spoil the impact of a mage. Poorly crafted mounting, framing, sigh, and proesntatn are some of the causes. A frame or matte that is not in keepg with the image, too gaudy, too modern, the wrong color, bad glazing or surface finishing, and lots more. Finishing and presentation are just as important an art as photographic craftsmanship.

On commercial work, there's seldom and credit line, signature, or "watermark" visible in the image. Legalites are agreed upon by contract and sometimes there are copyright notices on the back of prints it prints are submitted. Sometimes annual reports or certain types of corporate publications, I am given a credit line.

Photojournalistic images carry a credit line.


Prints or files submitted to competition never carry a signature or credits on the face of the image. Judging panels are usually not privy to makers' banes until the competition judging is completed.

Galleries and museums have their policies as to signatures.

If a piece is signed in pencil it is perminant. If the matte is signed, the print will become unidentified of the frame, or the matte is discarded.

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article on "watermarking"
.
https://headendinfo.com/what-is-watermark/#:~:text=Watermarks%20are%20very%20helpful%20for%20Video

markwilliam1

WOW! What a Response! No matter what you say Watermarks take away from the image. And they are easily removed! I would never buy an image with a Watermark. Purely an Ego thing and it doesn’t protect you from Anything. So why do it now? I’ve spoken to a few of my Professional photographer friends and they don’t use Watermarks anymore.

Hip Coyote

Watermarks are the mark of an amateur...amateur photographer and certainly what I used to call an armchair attorney. What is legal and what is a tort are mildly interesting. The issue is are you willing to litigate a complaint? How deep are your pockets? Ever deal with litigation costs? Unless this is your bread and butter business, move on to something else to worry about.

markwilliam1

Maybe I’m wrong but when I see someone’s name or anything at the bottom of an image I call it a Watermark.

markwilliam1

Would you buy an image with a Watermark on it Honestly?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

First of all, this is a forum. So, folks can express their opinions and of course, there are going to be differences of opinion. Other folks, reading on, can come to their own conclusions. No one has to agree with me I do not create laws or rules for others to impose my ideas on others.

If you read my previous post you notice I am not arguing for or against watermarks. I only mentioned hand-applied signatures and noted where and how I use them.

I am a full-time professional photographer and I am simply stating what I do- other professional photographers, advanced amateurs, and rookies may do things differently. That's OK!

Would buy an image with a watermark? I don't know- I was neveroffered one! If I lie the picture is enough- I might.

Watermars are for amateurs? Perhaps? I have no idea- I am not an amateur.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Use <quote reply> when engaging in a back n forth discussion.

REF: Proving an image is yours

To 'enforce' your copyright, that image has to be properly registered with the US Copyright office for a case in the US court system. The fact you have the original file is not the issue at question. Rather, has someone infringed on your copyright of that image, again, as properly registered at the US copyright office.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Use <quote reply> when engaging in a back n forth discussion.

Looking at your posts, you didn't store the image files. At best, someone / anyone can access a screen capture of your downsized thumbnail as displayed at UHH. If you shared elsewhere and / or emailed to others, the method and pixel resolution remain answered to be provided and confirmed, to be the best of your knowledge. There's little worry of 'theft' of a screen capture of an image.

This post was developed to explain how and why to lower the pixel resolution of images shared anywhere on the internet.

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

Hip Coyote

As I mentioned, if you are a pro and have skin in the game, then maybe. But a pro photog is an amateur when it come to legal matters. But I am not an amateur when it comes to litigation matters....I've been deposed more times than I can remember. And dealt with a many legal matters when I worked (not an attorney, but ran a very large operation that was legal-centric. I have my name in a rather well known Calif appellate case where my decision prevailed.) I did expert wit work as well.

The entire matter really is comical when people want to "sue." Unless it is a personal damage case where an attorney will take it with the hopes of winning a settlement and taking part of the settlement (usually 40%), then suing people comes out of your pocket. As in paying an attorney $500 an hour and up. Which is why depositions often take days...its not because of some hidden discovery needs...its billable hours. Go to mediation? Mediators often get $7500 a day paid equally by the plaintiff and defendant. If you need an expert witness, to the tune of $400 an hour, you pay for that as well. People think in terms of right/wrong or winning/losing. So taking some over saturated photo and having some small company use the thing without permission? Go to court? The only winners are the lawyers and the mediator. Unless you have very deep pockets and simply want to make a point.

Skip the notion of watermarks as protection, my opinion only.

markwilliam1

Totally Agree! It serves No purpose Unless you have a Huge Ego! My opinion only.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

when using Photoshop and maybe some other software.
I put my initials someplace on the photo. very very small. if you dont look for it, you'll never see it.
photoshop allows for some very small printing. Then if someone claims my work, those initials come in handy.
and yes I had one of my photos in a magazine, and I didnt put it there, didnt get paid, didnt get recognition and no attorney wanted to help with it. here is what I learned. I have to prove its my work.
thats NOt easy . Putting a copyright notice on your work is not enough.
you need to have it copyrighted with the Coppyright office.
Then its easier to prove.
The CR office made changes., You can now copyright up to 750 photos at one time. There are a few rules concerning them. all for one form and one fee.

markwilliam1

I’m Nobody compared to You E. Just an amateur photographer who develops and prints photos for myself! If I was a Professional who sells photos I might think differently. All my Respect to You. I can only say if I see an image with Watermarks of any type my eyes go directly to it first for some reason. Am I alone in this? Need my eyes checked Lol?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Carryover from artists signing paintings?
Does it detract from the painting?
Should they never be signed either?

People just say "watermark" with no reference to it being LARGE and plastered in the middle of the image or small and obscure in a corner. SO, that leaves everyone to literally guess (infer) as to which is being referred. And they will comment on what they think the person is talking about, but not stating to what they are referring..........

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you view any of my images, all with watermarks, is that where your eyes go first?

Don't know how to find someone's UHH images? Just click their user name, a URL to their UHH profile. Browse the list of their 'topic created', especially those in the Photo Gallery.