wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Ego thing. I used to put 4 of 25 on a print. Like it was a limited number of prints. I would probably onlhy print 3 or 4 but would impress whoever I gave it too. - Dave

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

But then you probably wouldn't share it with anyone either, right? :?

I think some of this has do with maturity - not age, but the longer you practice this and share it with people, the more you look at other's work that you admire and how they handle things like this, the more you learn and mature. The work I won't sign (or share) today might very well have made me proud earlier in the game. I look back on some of my earlier stuff and am mortified, often taking them down from sites. It's how we learn. So I tend not to be too terribly tough on those photos I see that maybe aren't necessarily (what I think is) state of the art. Because I realize how much I still have to learn myself. A lot.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

They can't steal them unless you make them public. If you don't want them stolen, if you don't want to pay out the nose for lawyers if they are, then don't make them public. Of course, family members and friends are another headache. :mrgreen:

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

And don't certain sites have built in protections against downloading photos? I know certain levels of Flickr do and so does 500px (although for some reason I can download from 500px to my 'droid.)

ph0t0bug

Some do, some don't.But how many Facebook photos have mysteriously become public when a person gets into the news? When you post on facebook it becomes facebooks property, not yours and they may do whatever they want with it, including selling it, watermark or no.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Thanks for that information Larry. I wish my work was GOOD ENOUGH for people to steal!
:)

JudyTee23 Loc: Eastern U. S.

First of all, I do not enter competitions. For me, they would be a waste of my time. I teach art five days a week, and teach photography five evenings a week. On the weekends, I do some painting, some of which I sell via two galleries. A fair percentage of my photos are sold through a network of tourist gift shops. The income I derive from these ventures gives me far greater satisfaction than any I could obtain from participating in competitions.

As for identifying a work versus "watermarking," I see a vast difference. I sign my paintings, unobtrusively, in the lower right corner, like most artists do. My photos are identified on the back.
I would have no objection to seeing someone's name in small letters on a lower corner of an image. But most watermarks I have seen are usually garishly splashed across the middle of the image, totally destroying any attractiveness the image might otherwise have. A large watermark clearly is intended to interfere with copying rather than being a mere means of identification.

In my considered opinion, when you post an image to the web, you have given it to the world. Since my bad experience of several years ago, I refuse to post any image on the Internet.

I may be unduly pessimistic, but I really feel that pursuing copyright infringement is for the "big boys" with deep pockets, such as Time-Warner, Disney Studios, Steven Speilberg, or major book publishers. It may be frustrating, but there are times when we must be realistic.

Mormorazzi Loc: Temple, Texas

So, what's the rule for expecting compensation? A photo I took of a hotel's exterior showed up on the front page of a national hotelier magazine last month. I took the photo for an ad that will soon be printed in a chamber directory and the hotel owner sent it off to his home office where it was picked up by the magazine. At first I was excited to see that photo on the front page, but became perplexed when I realized I might have received compensation for the photo. Of course, it wasn't watermarked; it ran in an ad, but it does have my "copyright" data in the metadata. (I'm not going to battle on this one; I'm just curious.)

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

I have no idea, but it appears that these businesses are willing to steal your work because they gamble that you will not spend a fortune on lawyers to receive compensation. My neighbor spent over 20 grand in 2011 suing trespassers. One of them ran his cycle into a fallen in well hole(and the hole was marked) on my neighbor's property that has 'do not trespass' signs all over it. The guy broke his leg in the accident and sued for his broken leg. My neighbor won, but he had to pay out 10+grand in lawyer and court fees. The same thing happened to him at his previous home. So really, the only ones who win in these situations are the lawyers and the judges.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Never rely on wikipedia for factual information, anyone can edit those entries, and misinformation is rampant. I've pointed this out before and perhaps I should just start a new thread to address the subject once and for all. Although I'm not a lawyer, I have studied the law extensively on numerous subjects including this one.

For a brief and accurate description of what Copyright is and is not, including what is required for copyright protection, read the "Copyright Basics" pamphlet put out by the USCO (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf)

It dispels a number of myths that I see on UHH frequently. For instance, you are NOT required to register the work with the USCO before you can claim damages. Your work is protected the moment it's created, i.e. when you press the shutter button.

Here's another explanation from photoattorney.com that concerns watermarks, note the comment about registration at the bottom... http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears.html

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

well sad

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

After careful consideration of all the information provided, I've elected to protect my avatar. :lol:

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

Said

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Next time you are in an art gallery, while you view the paintings see if the signature distracts from the painting. Now take a look at most watermarked photos on this forum. Does the watermark distract from the photo?

A relative will not be on the Antiques Roadshow trying to assess the worth of my images. I doubt there are many Picassos of the photography world here on the forum.

As already stated, your signature can be contained within the metadata of the image (not so with a painting), in case someone needs to prove who took the picture to set it's value at auction.

Of course, if you do feel you may be the next Leonardo da Vinci of images, register the picture. Your heirs will have all they need then. 8-)

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

This is really not the main reason for watermarking your images. Watermarking is just a way to get people to know and remember who the photographer was when looking at an image.

For instance - you send an image to a client that uses your images in some kind of brochure or ad. So you send them proofs of your work. They use one in an ad and years later they are looking to produce another ad and they want the photographer to make some changes to the image. They might look through all their proofs and find one of yours they like and they know it's your because of the watermark. That's how a professional might be remembered by their client.

Some people put a huge rather transparent watermark over the subject of every image they post. I don't really like this but some do it to discourage theft.

As far as copywrites go, that information is stored in the metadata of your image and for legal purposes there's really no need to watermark your image for this purpose unless you think the threat of a $2,500-$25,000 fine might discourage them.