# Do you really need to watermark? Alternatives?



## sincere (Dec 26, 2009)

Just curious on how nessesary it really is. Also, what alternative is there? What do you guys do to protect your own work?


----------



## Cooler_King (Dec 26, 2009)

I watermark purely because Picasa 3.0 has it as an optional tick box.  It just adds a small personal touch to my photos I think.

Occasionally it gets in the way of the details in which case I have to re-export the image with no watermark.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 26, 2009)

I don't do it.

As far as protecting your work, the best thing you can do is not post it online if you're that worried about other people downloading your stuff.

No watermark will stop someone from downloading your picture, and if it's too big it will just make the picture look like crap.


Either deal with the fact that people are going to download your pictures, or don't put anything online.

A nice compromise would be to only put crappy resolution pictures online.  That way, when people steal them, their prints will suck.


----------



## KmH (Dec 26, 2009)

sincere said:


> Just curious on how nessesary it really is. Also, what alternative is there? What do you guys do to protect your own work?


It's not necessary at all to prevent copying. It can be good for advertising though.

As Josh pointed out, if your images are online a watermark/copyright statement won't stop anyone from copying it. It's not to difficult to remove someones watermark/copyright statement anyway.

You become the copyright owner as soon as you release the shutter. In the distant past you had to put a copyright statement on the image to activate your copyright. Not today.

However, if you want to persue a copyright infringement legal action the first thing an attorney is going to ask is, "Is the copyright for the image(s) registered?"

Copyright is Federal Law and to secure all your legal rights, you have to register your copyright ownership with the US Copyright Office, a part of the Library of Congress. www.copyright.org

So, the only sure way to keep your images from being stolen from the Internet is, don't put them there in the first place.


----------



## Cooler_King (Dec 26, 2009)

o||||||o it's not really about protecting my work I just like to see it there but I believe you are making a dangerous statement there.

_"Either deal with the fact that people are going to download your pictures, or don't put anything online"_

That's nonsense.  It's like saying don't own a TV if you don't want someone to steal it.

Noone has a right to your intellectual property and I certainly won't be dissuaded from posting online because idiots may right click|copy one of my images.

I don't particularly care if someone steals it however we should not foster this lassez faire attitude to copyright theft.


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 26, 2009)

I view the watermarking in the same way as I view those godawful borders - folks (generally) think it adds a level of sophistication to the work ("View on black!!!").  If someone is going to steal your photo, and are stymied by a watermark - they will just find a photo without one on it.

If you must watermark, do so in a clever way.  I forget where, but someone had a watermarking technique where they embedded their details minutely and damn near hidden in the photo; much like the MPAA does on screenprints sent to movie reviewers.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 26, 2009)

Cooler_King said:


> but I believe you are making a dangerous statement there.


I don't.



Cooler_King said:


> _"Either deal with the fact that people are going to download your pictures, or don't put anything online"_
> 
> That's nonsense.  It's like saying don't own a TV if you don't want someone to steal it.


No, I think it would be more like saying "Don't buy a TV and store it on your sidewalk if you don't want it to get stolen."



Cooler_King said:


> I don't particularly care if someone steals it however we should not foster this lassez faire attitude to copyright theft.


You would rather foster denial?

There is no question that it happens.  The only question is what are you going to do about it?

You have 3 options

Option 1:  Don't care.

Option 2:  Post nothing.

Option 3:  The compromise option.  Post pictures, but make sure they're too crappy for a good print.

Myself, I am in the 'don't care' camp.  I know that anyone can download any of my pictures and I don't really care.  I make no attempt to stop it either (since all that would do is occupy more of my time and still not prevent anything).


I'm not saying that it's _right_ - I'm just saying that it's the way it is.

Denying that is just naïve...


----------



## Garbz (Dec 26, 2009)

Hit the nail on the head. 

Your three options as above:
1. The don't care attitude, Post large pictures knowing that eventually someone will steal them. Sure no one has a right to, but then people do it anyway, and for the most part there is very little that can be done about it. Quick search for "copyright" in the Discussions subforum would lead to plenty of examples.

2. Yeah not an option to post nothing, you may as well close your TPF account 

3. This is the one that causes the most grief in these types of discussions. There are plenty out there that think "make sure they're too crappy for a good print" means putting a watermark straight through the middle. Well if you're going to post that garbage I suggest you take option 2 above and don't post at all.

The thing to remember is that a 800px wide print may look good on the screen, but would be absolutely horrible to print. This means that when someone steals it they can simply use it on their own website to further their sorry little existence. However the resolution is too small to print in any way that would give it a sellable quality.


So the onus is on the photographer, do you share your pictures in a way that people can see them, do you cripple them to the point where people don't want to see them, or do you simply not share them to begin with. Those are your only 3 options.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 26, 2009)

One time (the only time) I don't mind seeing a watermark is when it is a small, unobtrusive, watermark identifying either the photo or the photographer.

I'm talking about a small watermark along an edge, or in a corner with the name of the photographer, or the name of the photo.

This type of watermark does absolutely nothing for theft prevention, but hey - that's not what it's there for.


----------



## Shockey (Dec 26, 2009)

I don't watermark. I don't worry about people stealing my images...it is going to happen....it has happened to me, no big deal.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 26, 2009)

> That's nonsense.  It's like saying don't own a TV if you don't want someone to steal it.





> No, I think it would be more like saying "Don't buy a TV and store it on your sidewalk if you don't want it to get stolen."



Wow, can't _anyone_ think critically anymore?  He's being intentionally ridiculous.

I'm not even going to bother arguing why "intellectual property" is an insulting oxymoron, I'm too tired to win that argument again.


----------



## Rekd (Dec 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > That's nonsense.  It's like saying don't own a TV if you don't want someone to steal it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Hypocrisy much? 

He made a valid adjustment to the intentional ridiculousness of the TV scenario.

Having someone come into your computer (your living room) and steal a (non published on the web) photo (the TV) is much different than someone coming onto your website (the sidewalk) and stealing a (published on the web) photo (the TV).

As for the topic, I don't watermark my stuff for protection, I do it for the advertisement. I guess that means I'm just vane. I don't even watermark all my stuff. The stuff I sell doesn't _usually _get put on the web.


----------



## Cooler_King (Dec 27, 2009)

Look just because theft _occurs_ does not mean everyone should just accept it.



> I am to tired to win that argument again



Good one.  Unless you have 'won' your argument in court you don't have a win, you just have an opinion.  Intellectual Property exists and should be respected.

How has the rise of the internet convinced everyone that they have a right to free information?  Where does this unnatural *right* come from?

Look, I am well aware that people take images from the web however that does not mean that it should be blindly accepted.

There is _many_ ways to stop images being stolen. So how about you become part of the solution instead part of the problem.

If you have a website or a blog you code alter the code - like this:



> <script language="JavaScript1.2">
> 
> //Disable select-text script (IE4+, NS6+)- By Andy Scott
> //Exclusive permission granted to Dynamic Drive to feature script
> ...



Like I said.  Many ways.


----------



## raptorman (Dec 27, 2009)

Does that script disable the print screen button of visitors? Does that script prevent a visitor from seeing your source code? 

There aren't many ways to stop images being stolen, there's just one: don't put them online. It's a simple fact, it has nothing to do with right or wrong or blindly accepting it.


----------



## Cooler_King (Dec 27, 2009)

I sincerely doubt that someone is going to go to the trouble of PRT SCRN then pasting into a powerpoint presentation only to have to crop the image, adjust the res and then export as a JPEG.

More than likely they will leave your site and try and find it elsewhere.



> Does that script disable the print screen button of visitors?


 No.  But studies have shown that very very very few users attempt to steal an image if right click|copy is disabled.  Most just move on.



> Does that script prevent a visitor from seeing your source code?


Who cares about source code?  Source code is is the instruction on how a broswer should render the markup language.  It won't help them reconstruct an image.  It _may_ give them the filepath but unless they have FTP permissions then it won't help.  



> There aren't many ways to stop images being stolen, there's just one: don't put them online. It's a simple fact, it has nothing to do with right or wrong or blindly accepting it.



Again - that is just simply not true.  You obviously just do not want to investigate the ways that limit image theft in which case you should be silent on the issue but you are making yourself look foolish.

It also makes me smile that those members who say


> My photos are not OK to edit


are the ones advocating not putting your images on the web unless you accept theft is inevitable.  

If you don't want your images edited then do not post them online.  :lmao:

This comes down to attitude not morals.

If you believe that there is no way to prevent image theft then you are misguided.  There are a multitude of ways and the real answer is that you are to lazy to investigate them.

But please don't pollute new photographers with your apathetic views upon the theft of peoples artwork.  It's actually offensive.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 27, 2009)

I never said it was inevitable, I just said that it is unpreventable.  Those are two different things and you are trying to imply that they are one.


You are seeing the words "stop" and "limit" as being one and the same (see your post above), and that just isn't the case.  Nobody said that there aren't ways to limit theft.  Thinking that anything you do can stop somebody from taking it is just delusional.  Yes, you can take steps to make them _not want it_, but if they are determined to have it - nothing you do can stop it once it's online.




Cooler_King said:


> If you don't want your images edited then do not post them online.  :lmao:



I don't care if you edit my images.  How could I stop you anyway?  I just don't want to see the result.
That's why I have the "not OK to edit" option checked.

You just joined, so I understand that you probably haven't seen what some people's idea of "helping you fix your picture" can look like.  I'm not talking about a crop suggestion, or something simple like that.

I know that little message under my name can't stop anything - it's just my way of saying "do whatever you want - just don't show me unless I ask for it"


----------



## Rekd (Dec 27, 2009)

Cooler_King said:


> More than likely they will leave your site and try and find it elsewhere.



I LOLed. :lmao:

No. They won't. If they want _that_ picture, they will take _that_ picture. 



> No.  But studies have shown that very very very few users attempt to steal an image if right click|copy is disabled.  Most just move on.


HA! I LOLed again. What "studies" are you referring to?

If "right click" is "disabled", (it's not on my computer, I have scripts disabled by default), they will simply hit the Windows Menu key and get their drop-down menu. 



> Who cares about source code?


 Only people that are trying to take your pictures. Duh. 

Source code gives you very quick access to the image location, where you could easily copy and paste into an address bar and grab the image. As my 7 year old would say, "easy peasy, extra cheesy". :lmao:




> > There aren't many ways to stop images being stolen, there's just one: don't put them online. It's a simple fact, it has nothing to do with right or wrong or blindly accepting it.
> 
> 
> Again - that is just simply not true.  You obviously just do not want to investigate the ways that limit image theft in which case you should be silent on the issue but you are making yourself look foolish.


OMG, I snorted coffee through my nose and onto my keyboard!  Talk about looking "foolish". :mrgreen:



> It also makes me smile that those members who say
> 
> 
> > My photos are not OK to edit
> ...


That is for this board. When people place an image, they are asking you not to edit it and re-display it ON THIS FORUM. Do try to pay attention.



> If you believe that there is no way to prevent image theft then you are misguided.  There are a multitude of ways and the real answer is that you are to lazy to investigate them.


See above. You got an image that you think can't be stolen? Post up or shut up.



> But please don't pollute new photographers with your apathetic views upon the theft of peoples artwork.  It's actually offensive.


Finally, we agree on something. :thumbup:


----------



## Cooler_King (Dec 27, 2009)

> But please don't pollute new photographers with your apathetic views upon the theft of peoples artwork.  It's actually offensive.
> 
> *Finally, we agree on something. :thumbup:*



Well shut up then.  Unless you have something contructive to contribute to the thread.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No?  I assume you are going with the shutting up then...:thumbup:


----------



## Rekd (Dec 27, 2009)

Rekd said:


> You got an image that you think can't be stolen? Post up or shut up.



I didn't think you'd want to prove your drivel. :lmao:

 I can prove that you can't post an image I can't steal. You can't prove I can't. 

Go ahead and finish with the index finger and thumb in the shape of an "L" on your forehead.


----------



## EhJsNe (Dec 27, 2009)

Well, getting back on topic....

Watermarking does prevent people from stealing work, but doesnt make it impossible.

Alternatives? The lovely folks here are right, if you dont want it stolen, dont post it.

I usually decide to watermark the photos I try to sell online and use a lower reselution (usually 6-800 pixels wide, and use more jpg compression)


----------



## Garbz (Dec 27, 2009)

Cooler_King said:


> No.  But studies have shown that very very very few users attempt to steal an image if right click|copy is disabled.  Most just move on.



Link please. 

Or I could make one up too:
Studies have sown that people who are deluded and desperate enough to make a name for themsevles by stealing other peoples work will go to any lengths to steal it.

Studies have also shown that a lot of people run Mozilla Firefox with script blockers rendering your Javascript totally useless, and people won't even notice that your have script.


----------



## Rekd (Dec 27, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Cooler_King said:
> 
> 
> > No.  But studies have shown that very very very few users attempt to steal an image if right click|copy is disabled.  Most just move on.
> ...



Yeah, right. :lmao: 

He hasn't attempted to prove anything he's posted so far, he's not about to start now. Unless you consider name-calling proof.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 27, 2009)

Shockey said:


> I don't watermark. I don't worry about people stealing my images...it is going to happen....it has happened to me, no big deal.



Agreed, on all points.:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## CSR Studio (Dec 27, 2009)

Shockey said:


> I don't watermark. I don't worry about people stealing my images...it is going to happen....it has happened to me, no big deal.


 
I agree as well. It is an unfortunate truth.


----------



## mostly sunny (Dec 28, 2009)

This may be way off topic.  But I have seen some really cool watermarks-  So much I would use that photographer-- well, unless the really cool watermark was on a horrible picture. Then I know to stay clear of that photographer.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 28, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Shockey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't watermark. I don't worry about people stealing my images...it is going to happen....it has happened to me, no big deal.
> ...



It's sad that this is the way it is, but what can you do about it?

I don't lose any sleep over it though...


It wouldn't surprise me if some of my images were being used somewhere (it also wouldn't surprise me if none of them were, lol).  Not really sure how I would know, until I saw one somewhere.

I know there's tineye, but it doesn't seem to work for me.  I've fed it pictures that I _know_ are being hosted on several websites, and get no results...
I have actually never gave it one that it actually found online somewhere...


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 28, 2009)

Right, on my blog I use watermarks only to advance brand name. I make it easy to steal the images (low res of course) and hope that they will spread the images around so that my name and brand will spread. Can they crop the logo out? sure. But why? the watermark is not that distracting, and I tried to make it attractive. 

Now, if I ever have a competing photographer saying it's his own, I might do something about it, but otherwise, I just try to use the fact people can steal the images as much to my advantage as I can.


----------



## AfroKen (Dec 28, 2009)

I add a little "watermark" (elevenshadows.com) identifier in some hopefully unobtrusive area of the photo and set the opacity so it doesn't kill the photo, and then hope for the best.  Like others have pointed out, it's inevitable that people are gonna steal your photos, so I just put a little mark on it and put it out there.


----------



## kkamin (Dec 28, 2009)

Cooler_King said:


> I watermark purely because Picasa 3.0 has it as an optional tick box.  It just adds a small personal touch to my photos I think.
> 
> Occasionally it gets in the way of the details in which case I have to re-export the image with no watermark.



I think watermarking has a place.  I use it for client proofing galleries to deter simple screen grabs.  My watermarks are very, very subtle but would still be extremely difficult to remove for the average person.

I think watermarks on portfolio pieces look self-indulgent.  Are there really all these _photo thieve ninja bandits_ out there?  Objectively, are your images really that kick ass for someone to want to steal?  Are you posting 3000x2000 pixel images online?  From my experience, most professional photographers whose works make your mouth drop have no watermarks in sight.  They want to display their images unobstructed.

I really don't think anyone should lose a millisecond of sleep over this.

Best regards,

Kkamin


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 28, 2009)

I dunno, most of the professional (wedding) photographers I see have logo's on their blogs, but not on the portfolios.


----------



## Vautrin (Dec 29, 2009)

Cooler_King said:


> > Does that script prevent a visitor from seeing your source code?
> 
> 
> Who cares about source code?  Source code is is the instruction on how a broswer should render the markup language.  It won't help them reconstruct an image.  It _may_ give them the filepath but unless they have FTP permissions then it won't help.



Most modern web browsers allow you disable javascript, and there are tools to get the info necessary to download the picture.  

Your main defense this route is it's not worth the effort to do for most would be thieves, but don't kid yourself that a sophisticated attacker won't be able to get your images...

Of course, if you're a photographer with a sophisticated attacker following you then you've got bigger problems


----------



## usayit (Dec 29, 2009)

Once you have a file path you don't need ftp to get the file as http serves the file anyways.  At the most, you can disallow directory listings but once the file path is  known... its over.

If you can see the photo... you can steal it.  The best you can do is reduce the photo enough to make them less useful for enlargements.


----------



## kkamin (Dec 29, 2009)

For Mac users all you need to do is:

COMMAND+SHIFT+3

to create a PNG snapshot of your entire screen.

------

I use Windows too and downloaded a shareware app that does the same thing.


----------



## usayit (Dec 29, 2009)

Command shift 4 is even easier


----------



## StillImage (Dec 29, 2009)

https://www.digimarc.com/ , what I use, has found it very useful and if you do enough business it is worth the cost.


----------

