# Why You Should Watermark Your Photos



## Jim Gratiot (Jun 11, 2009)

Careful, or this could happen to you...

Mo. family Christmas photo turns up in Czech ad - Yahoo! News


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 11, 2009)

Damnit, I thought I found this first :greenpbl:. Yeah..pretty interesting. Glad no damage came of it.


----------



## KmH (Jun 11, 2009)

Jim Gratiot said:


> Careful, or this could happen to you...
> 
> Mo. family Christmas photo turns up in Czech ad - Yahoo! News


Is that wild or what. Can you believe the guy that ripped off the image said he would send an email apologising for using the image? He thought it was computer generated? Which is still a copyrighted image?

Geez..........


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 11, 2009)

Jim, on the topic of watermarking&#8212;and this is really addressed to everyone&#8212;how far do you take it?

Personally, I hate watermarks with a passion; those in the centre of the photo are worst, because they simply detract from the image. Smacking a 50% opacity watermark dead centre in every photo is something I'd do for a contact sheet of photos for a paid job, but not for something to be displayed online that I mean to generate exposure; after all, if my subject is muddled by my watermark, who's going to want to look at it for any real length of time?

That said, I find that a watermark in the corner of an image is reasonable; it (almost) guarantees that if the photo is displayed out-of-context by an automated system (like Google images) that my name will be on it so any viewers at least have a place to start searching for more images if they like it. And while yes, someone could crop it out, that would prove their malign intent in a court-of-law, and if it can't be taken to court then (if they're in a country where I wouldn't be able to sue them easily), well, I can't anyway so the point is moot. Finally, unless you watermark the entire image (which I really, really hate), it can be removed by someone skilled enough. :-/


----------



## andrew99 (Jun 12, 2009)

I also saw this story on TV news last night.  What are the odds of finding out this has happened?  99.99% of the time you'd never know!


----------



## KmH (Jun 12, 2009)

andrew99 said:


> I also saw this story on TV news last night. What are the odds of finding out this has happened? 99.99% of the time you'd never know!


Exactly, if a friend of the family hadn't happened ride by the store they'd never know.


----------



## Overread (Jun 12, 2009)

+1 to what musical said!
honestly if your image is on the net one should always expect it to be used by someone somewhere at some point - might as well make it a good image with a little signature in the corner - a name and/or website are best - something that people can search on and find your site - its free publicity might as well make use of it!


----------



## Xristos48 (Jun 14, 2009)

Lol thats unlucky for them. Goes to show you need to be careful what you put on the internet.


----------



## Reese's PB Luver (Jun 15, 2009)

Reminds me of "National Lampoon's European Vacation" when the video camera was stolen....  

I love that the guy thought he'd never be caught using a US family's photo, but he did!  :thumbup:


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 15, 2009)

I think watermarking is a good idea for those with professional quality images. The ones that really annoy me are the ones that people slap onto their point-and-shoot snapshots, as if someone would bother stealing their image...


----------



## skieur (Jun 15, 2009)

Reese's PB Luver said:


> Reminds me of "National Lampoon's European Vacation" when the video camera was stolen....
> 
> I love that the guy thought he'd never be caught using a US family's photo, but he did!  :thumbup:



Perhaps, but then there are unfortunately lots of people who know nothing about copyright and think that everything on the net is in the public domain and free for the taking.

skieur


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 15, 2009)

the best way to fix this international problem would be if EVERY country enforced a law in which it was deemed Unlawful to use any image that is not property of yours without permission from the original Author (which can include free stock websites if they state it is free to use.)

that way us artists / phtographers (if you dont think photographers are artists)
wouldn't have to waste time watermarking EVERY image we decide to keep, instead we just upload and then no one is allowed to use it without breaking the law (the above also applys to everything else, stories, poems, drawings, CGI, text etc...)

it would save about 25% of our life as about 25% we are taking images and the other 50% we are working, socializing etc... or wasting time on here xD

maybe not as much as 25% but quite allot of time is spent making watermarks
so if they governed this law it would therefore mean any content no matter how idiotic and rubbish it is would not be allowed to be used by anyone without permission (i know the law already KIND OF states that but not entirely)


----------



## Nicholas James Photo (Jun 15, 2009)

If someone wants an old family snap for 180,000 hits on my web site please let me know....


----------



## theby (Jun 15, 2009)

Thanks! Bumping....


----------



## inTempus (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm firmly convinced most of my images are quite popular around the world...  I just can't prove it.  But my gut tells me people use them all the time for advertising in other countries.


----------



## skieur (Jun 15, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I'm firmly convinced most of my images are quite popular around the world...  I just can't prove it.  But my gut tells me people use them all the time for advertising in other countries.



Why don't you do a search for your own images?  If you find them where they don't belong, send out an invoice.  That is basic procedure.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Jun 15, 2009)

I heard someone respond to an NPR story on this one today.  Their response was "I don't see why they should be so upset!  They should consider it the highest form of compliment to have their picture used!"

I laughed and thought to myself "Maaaaaaaan the people on TPF would be rabid and frothing at the mouth if they heard _that_."


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 15, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I heard someone respond to an NPR story on this one today.  Their response was "I don't see why they should be so upset!  They should consider it the highest form of compliment to have their picture used!"
> 
> I laughed and thought to myself "Maaaaaaaan the people on TPF would be rabid and frothing at the mouth if they heard _that_."



Why I never! *wipes lips with a tissue*

Hrmph.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 15, 2009)

skieur said:


> Reese's PB Luver said:
> 
> 
> > Reminds me of "National Lampoon's European Vacation" when the video camera was stolen....
> ...



And probably outnumbering them are the people who _know_ that it's illegal but don't care.


----------

