Loading
There has been some talk around here about the use of watermarks. I have never had to use them, so I thought I would look into it and let you all know what I found out.
Firstly, at present all of the websites that I post my images on are for photography or photographers, so they have the security measures of the right-click-save disabled, and so forth. But after this was brought up here, and I looked into it, I decided it might be about time I start doing adding a watermark also.
One myth out there with the average website or blog is with those who talk about open source with regards to images. These are sites that do not use the right-click-save feature, and so forth. The ones that do when you right click, it eather does nothing, or it pops up a flag with the copyright and the photographers name.
In a moment I'm going to share with you how to add a watermark using the PicMonkey tool, for those of us who have the Standard Club membership plan, who can edit after upload.
Below are some 'arguements' for why it is important to think about using a watermark. My source is a forum discussion I took part in on Fine Art America here.
1. It is important to have the option to customize watermarks with artist name. Images do get ripped off all the time. But when they don't have your name on them, it simply does not benefit you at all. A watermark with your name has some minimal benefit in terms of not only attribution but legal standing in the USA.
2. Removing a watermark with a copyright owner's name is a crime, and if you are caught doing it you could owe a lot - plus legal costs. In a civil courtroom we only need to convince the judge they cropped it off better than you convince her that they didn't. You are not innocent until proven guilty in civil court in the USA.
3. There is just so much misinformation being spread around by all sides. By the same token nearly half of the population believes an un-watermarked image is copyright free. It’s a frustrating battle trying to convince people they can’t do whatever they want with our stuff because it’s online and not watermarked.
4. The argument is never that a watermark is going to stop anything. It’s that it puts you in a better position and gives people fewer excuses to be denying you compensation or at least attribution for your work.
5. Point is, all of this has to be framed in the context of business and what makes business sense, not in the context of you're angry because someone is stealing from you.
There is an example of the watermark in the picture above that I plan to use
- You have to go into PicMonkey and use the text tool,
- then make it white or black,
- then fade it so that it doesn't over power the image.
One thing to keep in mind is that once you add the watermark to your image, you might want to make a copy of it. For if you want to do something else with that image you won't be able to remove the watermark that easy. For example, many of my images are for sale as art photography. Collectors don't want my watermark on their art.
Hope you found this informative. Please share your experiences in the comments so we can all learn together.
Thank you for reading.
Frank J Casella
www.frankjcasella.ipernity.com
12 comments
Sami Serola (inactiv… said:
I personally hate watermarks because they spoil the image a little, but all the arguments you share here are of course good. I used to put my name on images myself, years ago, but then stopped because I thought my images are not worth of it anyway. And I tried to keep the watermark as small as possible.
Currently I have decided to "be an example" (good or bad), and share my images under Creative Commons. But it then should come with sharing information on how it works. And that is the tough part. I just find it exhausting to keep on lecturing what CC is about:
www.ipernity.com/blog/serola/4714068
But surely the watermark is the best option if and when one is professional, and want to really protect one's own images.
Frank J Casella replied to Sami Serola (inactiv…:
Here's an article by Dan Heller who I am a great fan of.
www.danheller.com/blog/posts/proposal-for-creative-commons.html
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to :
That first source is even better than my modest attempt to clarify Creative Commons.
On list of against, I would add the risk of actually infringing the copyright seriously, if photographing for example copyright protected board game, and then publishing the image under CC. It sort of endanger also others to infringe copyright.
Frank J Casella said:
digitaljournalist.org/issue0105/heller.htm
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Frank J Casella:
Frank J Casella replied to :
Andy Rodker said:
Of little practicle application to me at the moment but, yes interesting and all grist to the mill, as it were!
William Sutherland said:
Marko Novosel said:
Frank J Casella replied to Marko Novosel:
Marko Novosel replied to :
If iam buying a photography,i ask photographer to write his name in the back of it.
Frank J Casella replied to :