amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Watermarks and signatures on photos ARE an added layer of "copyright protection".

If your copyright ownership is properly registered, someone misuses your image and removes "copyright protections", you catch them and sue them, they're potentially subject to a fine of up to $30,000 per instance of removal in addition to anything else you might be awarded by the court (usage fees, reimbursement of legal costs, misc. other penalties, etc.)

Watermarks certainly can't and don't prevent folks from taking and using an image. People take share my images on Facebook, etc. all the time. In fact, I encourage it with my small, "proof" size images.... Because I've designed my watermark to act as an advertisement, with the URL of my photo galleries, etc.

Example of watermark ("proof" size image, max of 700 pixels long side, too small for printing):



Example of signature (scaled larger for small, lower resolution Internet image, smaller on prints):



In most cases, my finished images are "signed" similar to above, digital or print (smaller and more unobtrusively on bigger, higher resolution images... example is small & low rez for Internet usage).

Exceptions are most images that will be used commercially or editorially. Those I don't sign or watermark in any way. (With editorial usage I request a photo credit... but don't always get it.)

Other copyright protections are embedded in image EXIF metadata... "invisible" but serving the same purpose. However, EXIF is very easily removed or changed. It might even be automatically stripped off when images are uploaded to some sites.

The SIZE of images uploaded online might be the best protection you can have against misuse. With a few exceptions, I limit my "proofs" in my galleries to 700 pixels on the long side maximum. That's not enough really enough to make a 4x6" print. Especially if the image has also been watermarked.

My watermark may seem rather large and intrusive... but it needs to be readable if it's going to do its job as an advertisement. It's semi-transparent, gray lettering with white outline so that it's usable on virtually any image. That's so I don't need a light-toned version for images that are dark in the area where the watermark will be added and another dark-toned version for images that are light. I apply the watermark with Lightroom now... in batch conversions. You can have LR automatically scale it to fit either portrait or landscape-oriented images and can adjust the transparency.

I don't think there's anything at all pretentious or egocentric about using a watermark or signing an image. Watermarks are intrusive... but they're supposed to be and are just an unfortunate necessity. Signatures are simply because I take pride in my work and take responsibility for it.

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

As a professional photographer, I stick to certain traditions, acceptable trade and industry practices and common sense. Not every photograph and usage requires the same treatment as to signatures, logos and copyright notifications. Here's my take on the matter:

Portraiture: I hand sign all of my portraits- each print is signed with black, white or gray India ink or gold or silver metallic ink in one of the lower corners in a place where it won't interfere with the image. My signature is small and in proportion to the print size. I keep the color or tone of the ink in keeping with the key of the portrait so that it blends in well and ramis tasteful. My portrait clients expect this and the only complaint I ever received is when somehow I forgot to sign a print before it was delivered. I will also sign landscape prints, or certain architectural images that are displayed at architects' and real estate offices.

Theatrical Portraits: "Glossies" as the used to be called or certain headshots, traditionally carry the photographer's logo depending on the agency, the policies of the individual client or the venue. In theses cases the logo is inserted by means of overlay or watermark. Again, my policy is to keep it small enough to avoid distraction and clear enough for easy reading for those who are interested. The same policy applies to model agencies, modeling portfolios, composites, etc.

Commercial work: Photography done for commercial and industrial clients usually do not carry a signature, watermark, notice of copyright or anything of that nature. In rare cases a credit line may be included but that is the exception to the rule. Photographs for publication in print and news media may carry a credit line as per the agreement and policies of the publication- this issue has to be agreed upon in advance

COPYRIGHT ISSUES: Of course the (C) copyright symbol along with the maker's name and date do serve as a legal notice of copyright but in realistic terms, obviously, watermarked, had signed, overlayed, or stamped on the front or back of any image does not guarantee any ironclad protection against theft of you images or copyright infringement.

In my own business all of my contracts, work orders, and agreements include a notice of copyright specifying and stipulating that I retain the copyright and ownership of all negatives, transparencies, prints, digital files and media unless otherwise agreed upon in writing in that contract. The contracts also specify usages, frequency of insertions in advertising media and the costs and fees pertaining to the purchase of limited or all rights. I also stipulate that any unauthorized or unpaid for copying, reproduction, publication or usage is strictly prohibited. If a violation or disagreement ever comes before the courts, you will be at at a serious disadvantage without such documentation. Where significant amounts of money are concerned, it is wise to register you copyrighted images with the copyright office.

Even with watermarks, logos, signatures and contractual agreements, misuse, theft or unauthorized usages of you images may be hard to track or detect unless you actually fine it has been published or displayed without your authorization. Sadly enough, the Internet is a minefield of all kinds of infringements and some folks, even corporate bodies, somehow assume a sense of entitlement to plagiarize and baltentley steal the creative works of others. I find this very unfortunate because it exposes my work to theft and my expose my private and corporate clients to other problematic legal and proprietary issues and situations.

Because of this, I make it a strict policy NOT to put much or my client and commercial work online. I wish I could show more of my daily work right here on the Hog but that could be problematic. Although I also stipulate in my contracts that I have to right to use images made in conjunction with each contract as samples of my work and for teaching purposes, I am very reluctant to post most of it. Another reason for not watermarking commercial work is that many corporate clients do not wish to disclose their suppliers to their competition and insist on exclusive rights to certain concepts and styles, especially the ones that the have paid dearly for to their ad agencies, subcontractors and photographers.

As for ego, etc.- I don't feel that signing and tastefully identifying your work is egotistical or is tantamount to distracting or defacing your photographs as long as it is done tastefully and in keeping with your client's needs. Artists have been signing their work for time immemorial.Yes, it is good advertising and promotion and so it should be, again, as long as it is reasonable and kept in good taste. If you sell you work as art, stock on the open market, you are certainly justified in protecting it by all reasonable means.

If you are not in the BUSINESS of photography and do not expect or want any remuneration for you images, I can understand your point of view, however, I feel that folks should not benefit from your efforts without so much as asking permission and offering you some recognition. I AM in the business of selling my images and services and can be somewhat mercenary about my livelihood, however, I have donated, given away many images and services when there is a need or a circumstance where I can help. Oftentimes a "thank you" or just a good feeling will suffice.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

"So for those that say that it's pretentious or ego thing you're likely not making a living as a photographer." Sounds close to it to me.

DanielJDLM

I have been selling my photos for over ten years. I only signed my framed pieces, but often customers requested I sign prints and the gallery wrapped canvas pieces. I finally had a professional signature created in black and white script, I. Two widths, which I can add to
as I wish.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

If you look at old photos from the 40s and 50s, they all have the photographer's name or logo.
At least there is a precedent for this. As will all matters in a service business, "the customer is always right."
It should be their preference that counts.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

No, in order to be Pro, you have consistently produce images that are recognized to be better than everybody else's. Watermarks were not applicable during the film era, when I guess that Photographers worth a crap did their work. Now, with digital images, it is very possible.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

A signature or logo does not copyright an image. That is done automatically when you push the shutter.....Artist sign their work, for identification. I think most photographers do it for the same reason. It is a reminder where to get another copy.......