Why Watermark!

[Dodgykeeper]

I sometimes wonder why people put such large and elaborate watermarks on their images, do they believe that ppl will use their images without permission, if you post up a smallish pic (within the rules of the forum) surely this would make printing the pic very diffucult and not very effective.

Are photographers afraid of ppl posting their images on websites!

Another question I have re watermarks is that a lot of the time the poster of the pics apoligises for the size/quality of the watermark! If your not happy with it dont put it there!

[Fajitas!]

+1

I really don't like watermarks myself. They're taking so much away from the image.

For the resolution I (or most other people here) post their images, noone's going to be getting a decent print from them. The majority of people who do want a print will give you a shout and ask you.

If I see more and more and more photos up for C&C with watermarks taking up the whole image, I might just start giving a critical analysis on their watermark design. Or their choice in typeface. Or maybe just their name.

[Tallon]

But you can just click on the link to pix.ie for example and have the original size! so posting the small size is irrelavent

People are paranoid, becasue pictures do get used, all the time.

I'm not too picky on people using my pictures for free on sites, as long as they have a link or credit to myself. If I thought the picture was good enought to be used in papers etc, i would probably watermark it

[ironclaw]

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

[Fajitas!]

I generally don't put anything past 1200px on the longest end up for public viewing - It's the easiest way around it.

[Fajitas!]

Originally Posted by ironclaw

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

And I hope he invoiced them.

[Dodgykeeper]

Surely there is a way to disable the full size viewing of pics on pix.ie and if there isnt then may I suggest flickr as an alternative.

These websites are designed for ppl to showcase their work and one where the work has to be ruined in order that it wont be stolen is in effictive in my opinion!

[Fajitas!]

Originally Posted by Dodgykeeper

Surely there is a way to disable the full size viewing of pics on pix.ie and if there isnt then may I suggest flickr as an alternative.

Simple solution is just not upload high resolution files to them.

[mervifwdc]

Ah! The mighty watermark.

I usually watermark the living hell out of my images I put on the web. And I know that the size means you cannot get a good quality 10*8 print, and you all know that, but the public does NOT know that.

I've seen 800 pixel files downloaded from sites and printed as 6*4's, water mark and all, and placed in peoples houses. They look average to ok, suprisingly enough if you look at them from a distance. And they sure as hell look ok on facebook or any other web site.

I sell small web images for 5 euro, no watermark, so why would I give them away by posting with no watermark? And while only 1 in 100 might be found by someone wanting it, it sets a precedent or standard that is a slippery slope.

I guess the question is, are the images your posting for fun / hobby / amusement, or are they a way to make a living?

The event photos on my site are watermarked with 2 lines of text, and I'll not appologise for it. At event where I do on-site sales, I've seen kids come up to the screens, find their photo, and then take a picture of it with their phone. I'm now thinking of watermarking even the ones people are looking at on MY computers!

The stuff I just do for fun, dont care about so much, so I'll post images of travel, people, wildlife with no watermarks as I cannot see the commercial value in them. If I did, or if I though that I was causing some other photographer to loose out on a sale because I gave away (or allowed anyone at all to steal them) images, then I'd watermark them too.

There are quite a few commercial or wannabe commercial (i.e. making a living from) photographers on here, and the thoughts of loosing sales due to lack of watermarks is usually pretty high on their list of concerns. Definitly the ones selling to the public.

Merv.

[Dodgykeeper]

Originally Posted by ironclaw

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

While I find this story very hard to believe, the ppl behind oxygen would have access to loads of pics and would not have to resort to trawling flickr to rob one, if it is true it could be avoided if he did not post them full size!

[DotOrg]

Originally Posted by ironclaw

A friend of mine took photo's at Oxygen one year (He has a reasonable camera and is fairly talented), posted them full res on Flickr and found them a year later on Oxegens posters and website. I think that strenghtens the case of the watermark.

same thing happened to me, they took a photo of mine (not taken at oxygen) and used it on the oxygen website. I simply phoned them, let them know and then sent an invoice for use of the image which they then paid

[mervifwdc]

Originally Posted by Fajitas!

I generally don't put anything past 1200px on the longest end up for public viewing - It's the easiest way around it.

Actually, thats way too big! The standard size for sending sports images to the newspapers in my area i 1200px on the long side. 400k to 800k sized file. And they will print that up to 1/2 page!

Merv.

[Paulw]

Originally Posted by Dodgykeeper

if it is true it could be avoided if he did not post them full size!

Most photos used/robbed/etc tend to not be large high-res images. They are generally just used on websites, so even medium/small images are fine. So, a 600px, 96ppi image is more than fine (and is large) for most websites. Even a screen grabbed image is quality enough to use on a website.

Yeah, I know, there is no full way to protect your images. Don't post them online if you don't want them stolen.

A watermark can help protect your work. I have tried (more and more) to make my watermark less visible, but still there.

Anything of mine that I think has commercial value, I put a watermark on it.

[mervifwdc]

Originally Posted by DotOrg

same thing happened to me, they took a photo of mine (not taken at oxygen) and used it on the oxygen website. I simply phoned them, let them know and then sent an invoice for use of the image which they then paid

While that's a success story, what about the amount of times that we dont see where our images were used?

I dont think a lot of people on this and other boards and various camera clubs realise just how good their images are. And therefore how usable they are to many different purposes.

while many companies / organisations may not go out on purpose to rob an image, it does'nt feel like stealing when a designer is up against the wire on a friday night deadline and just copy's an image. Loads of people do it with music - MP3's. It does'nt feel illeagal.

and regular photo viewers standards are lower than ours as photographers, so an image we might think "Ah, that's not going to be used by anyone" might be just the thing someone's looking for!

[AnCatDubh]

driven by the forum here, I now only load 800px longest side image. Far less taxing on upload resources (limits and bandwidth).

If someone needs to view bigger, by request and arrangement, I will email them (once i receive payment )

Also, i've started dropping a copyright notice into the exif which may trap a lazy thief in the online world (but doesn't stop someone from removing it). I've to integrate this into a proper workflow as yet.

"Tin eye" is interesting technology which should be helpful in this regard in the future - a bit early in the day yet.