Photo Watermarks

[TexKen]

Ok - so I'm nowhere near professional, but I have posted some of my pics on here and other sites and plan to do even more in the future and thought that I should probably watermark them in some way for all the reasons that I guess everyone else does: provide a little protection (maybe very little) from image thieves, general publicity etc.

I've seen several styles: words or logo right on the image (location and sometimes even color varies), matte border (usually black) with your studio name in the border (probably more for publicity than image protection since it would be easy for a thief to crop your matte out. Some add a color border.

Anyone care to comment on their watermark and why you went with the style you did? Anyone see any cool ideas on other's work?

Thanks.

[HotHolly]

I hate putting a watermark on my stuff, but its a necessary evil. I used to use a black border and put it there b/c it didnt mess with the images' flow or comp...but that doesnt serve the purpose of keeping others from taking it. Whether you are pro or not, if you dont want someone else using your image, you need a fairly large watermark across the image.

[PIC]

Originally Posted by TexKen

... thought that I should probably watermark them in some way for all the reasons that I guess everyone else does: provide a little protection (maybe very little) from image thieves, general publicity etc. ...

Watermarks produce very little protection and often are distracting.
Anyone can Photoshop or even crop the mark out.
There is also automated software that does the same.
If someone wants to steal they will.
The lazy thief copies and crops or removes the watermark.
The worst thief copies the idea and concept then shoots and sometimes puts their mark on it.

[brad]

Visible watermarks are not for protection. They are for marketing.

[TexKen]

Originally Posted by brad

Visible watermarks are not for protection. They are for marketing.

Yeah - I guess protection was not really the primary reason for the watermark. That being said, maybe the black matte with the watermark isn't a bad idea.

[texkam]

Visible watermarks are not for protection.

Pretty much true, but it does tell someone that you value your images and are more apt to come after someone who steals them (even if they remove the mark). This may deter some.

[brad]

Good point, Mark.

I do not use the border method because its too easy for someone to take it off.. then someone else sees that edited image... if they are going to take it off, I want them to work for it.

[kimberley]

my watermark/logo mainly for marketing and also to deter from scanning copying goes right through the image so it cant be taken or crop off :)

[Cajungaltx]

This is my 'posted' image with my watermark. If someone wants the image to steal - they'll do it...

[thehatguy]

Never say never.

I'm not a good Photoshopper, but some folks are.

John

[w9ctm]

I have often really wondered how often someone is really stealing images. Now, I am not suggesting it doesn't happen, because I am confident it does. But I am at a loss to find a manner of somewhat protecting your image, without degrading the images beauty, sharpness, composure, whatever. Unless you do something such as what Kimberly has done. I really like what others use as a watermark, Donna's for example, but am at a loss still, as I don't see the images being protected by Donna's watermark..
Let me give you an example: I don't consider much of my photographs anything [I]that[I] spectacular, when I am just out shooting. I use Smugmug for my photograph sharing and such. Smugmug allows you to track which of your galleries and specifically which pictures are getting the most hits, which ones people are looking at in larger views, etc. Since I watch these numbers, I wonder who is really looking at my pictures that often. Many of these images are of cars. I have a copyrighted image X over the image as a theft deterrent, but know if someone really wants the image, they will still try to copy it and manipulate the copyright notice on it. I changed to this copyright notice from just a Murphy Photography logo on the bottom right, due to fear that many were just copying the images, since it can be done.
I felt the images were being copied due to few sales of images in that particular gallery, but many, many hits, and many views in a larger format. Hence, I changed the watermark in the lower right corner to the copyrighted image X that covers most of the image. Surprisingly, the hits only dropped about 20%.
Am I hurting myself? Doubt it. But what do you do? I have many images from concerts I have shot, and some of these images have VERY high hits. Again, I have put the big X coyright notice on these galleries. Am I worrying about nothing, worrying too much, shooting myself in the foot?
What are others opinions about watermarks and protecting your images? I would like to read what everyone else thinks...
OK, I am done venting now.....

[w9ctm]

My point exactly John.

[hotshot38]

Chuck,

Are you allowing for sharing, external links to your photos? Maybe people are posting them to car forums and such. In which case, it seems to be free advertising for you if you have your logo/URL on each image. Of course, on the flipside of the coin, why pay for the cow when you are getting the image for free. People who 'link' or embed your photo from smugmug probably wouldn't be the ones who would pay for such a photo anyways.

-Sean

[kimberley]

can others edit my photos:NO

[brad]

Originally Posted by w9ctm

I have often really wondered how often someone is really stealing images.

You would be amazed.

Watch the Photoshop Disasters blog: PhotoshopDisasters Its amazing how often photos get used that still the the iStockPhoto watermark on them.

I used to think that no one would want mine except my client themselves since my subjects are so specific.. but recently found someone on Facebook using one of my client's photos (of the client) as their avatar.. with my watermark still on it. Facebook removed it for me. :)

Still, the point is that once it leaves your control in any way, printed or online, it is no longer protected from someone who wants to steal it.

As I said before, a watermark is for advertising.

Someone else added that its a good reminder to a would be thief that you care enough to watermark it. That might give some people pause, but no one who is determined is going to be stopped by any watermark.. including Kimberley's. If they can't crop it or photoshop it, they'll just use it anyway as my examples above should tell you.