Photo Watermarking

[atco]

Hi all,

This issue has been around for a while now, and, surprisingly, the other site has taken positive steps in addressing the concerns of a number of photographers regarding image misuse and theft.

I have for some time now been adding a small logo on my pictures in the corner, sadly this has not prevented copyright violations.
I now have some shots from very special access I would like to share but I am concerned that because of the unique nature of some of these shots they may be targets for misuse and for me personally they may be commercially valuable.

As far as I am aware there is no definitive policy on copyright logos at the moment. What I would like to propose is that photographers be allowed to add watermarks to their images of any size, provided the watermark does not hide any part of the subject. Of course this should be optional for those that wish to use it, for those who don't then there is no problem.
And despite a lot of concern at another.net site watermarked images have regularly appeared as most popular or in the top 4 of the day.

Whilst I acknowledge that aesthetically a watermarked image is not as pleasant as a non-watermarked one, I feel the benefit outweighs the negative in that shots that may not otherwise be uploaded can be shared and enjoyed. the key is to make it optional so everyone has their own choice.

I'd be interested to see how the admins feel about this issue, I would be happy to show you an example of the kind of watermark I was thinking of tonight when I get home from work.

Thanks for reading

Garry

[YYZPICS]

110% with you on this.

[CPH Aviation]

Hey Garry - The only rule we have at the moment regarding watermarks/copyright logos is that is must not be visible on the thumb nail photo.

Soren

[MaxPower]

Hey Garry - The only rule we have at the moment regarding watermarks/copyright logos is that is must not be visible on the thumb nail photo.

Soren

Excuse me what.. ?? You mean it has to be fainted enough to spot in the thumbnail. ? And what if the logo or marks are distracting the view.?

[RingwaySam]

I completely agree with you Garry. Although I don't think any of my photos have been mis-used I would like to see JP introduce watermarks.

I really hope it can be done

[atco]

Thanks Soren,
Can this rule be changed in favour of the one I proposed?
I have in mind a large watermark similar to the airliners.net one but with very low opacity so that it does not jump off the page, but visible enough to prevent it being cloned out or the image being used without the watermark in place.
I would like each individual photographer to be able to decide on their own watermark (A.net does not allow this under their current watermark scheme) but with the all important rule that the watermark must not hide any part of the subject. This would prevent watermarks being too "in your face" and would stop anyone using a convenient watermark to hide a soft or blurry part of the photo.

Cheers

Garry

[CPH Aviation]

Excuse me what.. ?? You mean it has to be fainted enough to spot in the thumbnail. ? And what if the logo or marks are distracting the view.?

No I said it can NOT be visible on the thumb If its all across the image distracting the view it will be rejected, but I have never seen one of those yet.

Thanks Soren,
Can this rule be changed in favour of the one I proposed?
I have in mind a large watermark similar to the airliners.net one but with very low opacity so that it does not jump off the page, but visible enough to prevent it being cloned out or the image being used without the watermark in place.
I would like each individual photographer to be able to decide on their own watermark (A.net does not allow this under their current watermark scheme) but with the all important rule that the watermark must not hide any part of the subject. This would prevent watermarks being too "in your face" and would stop anyone using a convenient watermark to hide a soft or blurry part of the photo.

The watermark has been discussed among the crew a while back and the result was a no go on the issue. Garry you can email me an example of what you have in mind at soren @ jetphotos.net and I'll bring it up with admin!

The problem with watermarks is that it will not prevent people of stealing photos if they want. Other sites that have the watermark gives there paying customers the choice of viewing the photos with or without the watermark, and if we were to introduce the watermark option of photos, we would have to do the same!

Soren

[FlyingPhotog]

Can't we have a visible default watermark like a.net?

[Top_Gun]

The problem with watermarks is that it will not prevent people of stealing photos if they want. Other sites that have the watermark gives there paying customers the choice of viewing the photos with or without the watermark, and if we were to introduce the watermark option of photos, we would have to do the same!

Soren

It might not stop people, but I bet it would slow people down. If they have to clone out a water mark then the image for the most part won't be as clean as it is without it.




This is an online friend from another forum, he does this light watermark for the same reason. I don't find it so distracting that I wouldn't open the thumbnail to look at a bigger image.

Sure someone with enough time could remove it, but why would they bother when they can go to another site.

I'd also like to see this put on all pictures, and only NOT viewable if people pay for the Elite membership?

[lmw]

That watermark is the most annoying thing out there! It doesn't prevent misuse either.

[MaxPower]

Dave, thats your opinion. I do think it looks distracting seeng the image posted by you, the copyright is located at the most worst spot to place it on. IMO

[fallingeese]

That watermark is the most annoying thing out there! It doesn't prevent misuse either.

It is useful and sure as hell stops or slows theft. Most people are looking for a quick photo to fill a need. This will help.

[DAL767-400ER]

Can't we have a visible default watermark like a.net?

A.net doesn't have a default watermark, IIRC. It will only be included if a photog chooses to do so.
Personally, I'm no fan of watermarks. Sure, just looking at it, it appears to be a good idea to prevent illegal use of a pic, but there are two disadvantages to it:
1) A watermark all too often "destroys" a pic by the way it is being placed.
2) If I were still serious about stealing images, I could sign up an account for 1 month, which means I get to see all pics without the watermark, and with the help of some download manager/program, I could get the whole database without watermarks and use it, and it's only cost me a couple of bucks.
Hence, I don't see anything good in a watermark.

[atco]

Part of the problem is people who have never been victims of photo theft quickly jump in and say watermarks don't work.

Once you have been the victim of photo theft where it costs you money you would otherwise have made and someone sits there claiming your work as their own, then perhaps you might have a different view. But what sticks in my craw more than anything is they demand that nobody should be given the choice.

What I propose gives each photographer a choice, if you don't want a watermark on your photo then don't use it, simple. And the fact is if you find them so hideous to look at don't open the large image (although I think the results from a.net prove that many people do still open the big photo). Also because there is no watermarking how many images will you never see anyway because photographers are not willing to risk their work being pirated.
I have shots I will simply not upload here if they cannot be offered more protection, because I feel they may be commercially valuable to me as a photographer.
In that case everyone loses out.
I do not believe that signing up for a membership to not have watermarks does anything, it should be an all or nothing matter, the watermark is there for everyone or noone, because as has been mentioned you just sign up for membership and can steal away.

[seventwo]

Watermarks would be a great addition IMO. As long as its not to potent, I dont think it takes anything from a picture.