Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2015, 12:02 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
So, a thought struck me today, as I was considering adding watermarks to my online images. Just as spies once used microdots to encode information in an ordinary message, perhaps we could add "microdot" watermarks in such a way that only we would know where they are. If an image is stolen, and you uncover the theft, you can reveal the watermark. But it doesn't clutter the image. Possible? If possible, worth considering?

I realize some would say that you should want the watermark to be visible as an indicator (of ownership, of copyright, of pride, of difficulty needed to steal it, etc).

I sign any image that I mat or mat/frame. Of course, I sign on the mat, as is traditional. So, any of my images in an exhibit, or sold to a buyer, or given as a gift, or hanging in my house, have my signature. I also attach on the back of the mat/frame a short artist's bio with my photo (in an envelope). At one time I thought also of attaching to the back one of my photo business cards, but I've been having second thoughts about that for several reasons.
Interesting thought. I do something very similar in my PowerPoint work (at "work" work). I think I do some excellent analytics and correspondingly cool presentations and I make sure my contact info is either at the start or end of the document. However when these documents need to be circulated outside the company and some of my pages will be used by other departments or companies as PDF, I make sure my name and contact are at the bottom of every page just outside the frame *IN WHITE FONT*. That way they are not visible or printable but if there is ever a question of authorship all I need to do is highlight the part of the signature at the bottom of the page and voila!

I suppose photographs need to have a similar feature somewhere unobtrusive.

07-22-2015, 03:00 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: central Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 363
A very good discussion, I have been back and forth on this for awhile so this may help me to decide whenever I feel comfortably past this level of digital photography that I'm in now.
07-22-2015, 03:27 AM   #18
Veteran Member
mtux's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: the Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,444
I like it when out of nowhere I stumble upon a photo with a familiar signature, it happened to me several times.
so keep the watermarks on your photos guys
07-22-2015, 04:49 AM   #19
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,149
Um I don't think watermarking/signing helps much if your goal is to prevent reuse. Its just a statement of authorship/ownership/pride/whatever. My photos on Flickr are signed because Lightroom makes it ridiculously easy to do so, even though I have no intention of selling/enforcing copyright ever. If it was a hassle, I'd skip doing it.


If you want to prevent reuse, it's much more efficient to limit the posted image quality/size.

07-22-2015, 06:20 AM   #20
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
As others said, it's just a statement of ownership and an indication that the image isn't free to use. It has nothing to do with the quality of the picture. Sure, someone could easily remove the watermark but, if asked, they certainly couldn't say that they didn't knew the image was copyrighted...
07-22-2015, 06:27 AM   #21
Veteran Member
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,988
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
So, a thought struck me today, as I was considering adding watermarks to my online images. Just as spies once used microdots to encode information in an ordinary message, perhaps we could add "microdot" watermarks in such a way that only we would know where they are. If an image is stolen, and you uncover the theft, you can reveal the watermark. But it doesn't clutter the image. Possible? If possible, worth considering?
It's called Steganography.
Photoshop Steganography Tutorial - Hide An Image Within An Image
07-22-2015, 07:03 AM   #22
Veteran Member
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,996
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Interesting. I don't question signing prints, or canvas, it's totally understandable. If someone is good or serious enough to sell prints, or give them as a gift then signing must have, imo.
As for posting signed pictures online (if it's not trade mark of a real pro who makes money), or adding watermarks, it's kind of useless in order to protect images from the theft.


That's exactly what I thought about signing photos online. It does add some "seriousness" to the photographer's work. So, the only valuable reason to me to add sign or watermark when posting online is to make a statement that it is bigger than just a hobby.

That's why I was curious how it starts when you decide to sign pictures online.
As to when I decide to put watermarks on my photos... here is MHO:
-if you are beginner and your photos look awful (with all technical flaws etc.), then I wouldn't do it. As the first impression is very important, otherwise, people remember your pictures suck. That's why at the beginning I don't.
-I shoot lots of events and usually there are other 'photographers' there taking the same event. As I continue to refine my skills not only in using the camera but also in my post processing, I started to realize my photos are usually far better than others who took the same event. That is when I started to put watermarks on my photos to ensure people's perception of not associating picture IQ with only impressive and expensive gear.


Last edited by aleonx3; 07-22-2015 at 07:26 AM.
07-22-2015, 07:19 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
if your uploading photos to a sharing/social media sites always upload signed copies and keep the originals to yourself, just in case the media industry (movie, tv, music, magazine) uses your pictures, then you can claim credit or reparation

also even if you photograph people for fun, you should always check with them if its ok to post online, ultimately they own the photo till you get them to sign a model release
07-22-2015, 07:46 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
I do cosplay photography and the photos are posted in multiple places--my Facebook site, my Flickr site, and usually (I hope) the cosplayer's site. The ones I've done sessions with are excellent about proper crediting but sometimes the hallway shots...people just repost without a link. The signature makes sure that happens even when the cosplayer is negligent.
It hurts my head every time I see a photo distributed on Facebook or elsewhere with zero credit given to the photographer. I like to be annoying, so I often try to track down the source via tineye or google and point out whose photo it was. This is getting more and more difficult as stuff that's been rampantly shared often has the original source of the photo buried behind a dozen pages of pinterest references. Your name discreetly in the corner can solve this for the people who are just lazy and can't be bothered to take 10 seconds to cut & paste the photographers name when they share a photo, the real turds who pull out photoshop to remove a simple watermark won't be stopped of course.
07-22-2015, 09:33 AM   #25
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
As the first impression is very important, otherwise, people remember your pictures suck. That's why at the beginning I don't.
This is very valid reason not to do it as a beginner if having plans to make money, or establish the name in the future.

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
It hurts my head every time I see a photo distributed on Facebook or elsewhere with zero credit given to the photographer. I like to be annoying, so I often try to track down the source via tineye or google and point out whose photo it was.
Yep, I see it on FB all the time, and not only on FB. I can't stand online little magazines, or blogs which make money on advertizing, take pictures for their stupid articles (how to keep boyfriend, etc...) without mentioning the photographer. I doubt they pay for stock images.
07-22-2015, 10:24 AM   #26
Veteran Member
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,988
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
if your uploading photos to a sharing/social media sites always upload signed copies and keep the originals to yourself, just in case the media industry (movie, tv, music, magazine) uses your pictures, then you can claim credit or reparation

also even if you photograph people for fun, you should always check with them if its ok to post online, ultimately they own the photo till you get them to sign a model release
Not sure where you're from, but in the United States, you almost never need a release, and the subject *never* ever owns the photo unless you signed a contract specifically conveying ownership of copyright to the subject.

QuoteQuote:
If the use of the photo implies that the person agrees with the underlying message or the person or company that paid for the use of the photo (like that of an advocate for a non-profit company), then a release is required. For example, a publisher can't just place a photo of a person on a poster that says, "support your local hospital," just because this is not a "commercial use." The photo would imply an association between the subject of the photo and the user of it, and that's what triggers the need for a release. Similarly, if the use of the photo implies that the publisher of the photo is speaking for the person in the photo, again, this requires a release. For example, a photo of a musician that says, "I never go on stage without my guitar," even though the use of the photo never advocates a specific guitar company or other product. The fact that the user of the photo would appear to be speaking on behalf of the person in it, a release would be necessary.
(unless it was a direct quote from the person, in which case it would be considered editorial use and no release would be necessary).
QuoteQuote:
The general rule to think of is whether the use of a photo would imply that the subject "agrees with" or is a "sponsor of" the user of the photo, versus whether the use of the photo is more about the subject that the average viewer would not assume the subject would necessarily agree with, or disagree with.
And in any case where a release would be needed, if it goes to court, it would be the publisher of the image, not the photographer, who is held responsible for using the image inappropriately. That is why many publications request model releases even in cases where they wouldn't be necessary.

Lots more info here:
Model Release Primer
Model Releases
07-22-2015, 10:32 AM - 1 Like   #27
Senior Member
Bunch's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 283
It hurts my head every time I see mediocre pictures with a big ol watermark or signature, especially right over the subject.
07-22-2015, 10:52 AM   #28
Veteran Member
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,988
At present, the only photos I watermark are the ones I send to my photography club for presentations - I usually put my name and the camera settings in smallish text at the bottom of the image, because it saves me the trouble of having to remember and then recite the camera settings every time when the guy who runs the club asks.
07-22-2015, 01:58 PM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by narual Quote
United States, you almost never need a release, and the subject *never* ever owns the photo
say you sell a photo of a subject to a publication, then say the publication uses the image in a context that upsets the subject, then subject decides to seek legal action, publication gives up your name, to avoid paying any damages, now subject is suing you for damages (it does happen)

whenever i intend to use a photo/video recording of someone for personal gain i always get them to sign a model release, just to cover my ass from any legal repercussions that may arise...
07-22-2015, 02:49 PM   #30
Veteran Member
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,988
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
say you sell a photo of a subject to a publication, then say the publication uses the image in a context that upsets the subject, then subject decides to seek legal action, publication gives up your name, to avoid paying any damages, now subject is suing you for damages (it does happen)

whenever i intend to use a photo/video recording of someone for personal gain i always get them to sign a model release, just to cover my ass from any legal repercussions that may arise...
It'd get thrown out of court. You didn't publish the image. The publisher did.

And that's a far cry from your claim that the subject owns the photograph. I trust you recognize that that claim is entirely nonsense?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
images, photography, pictures, sign
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your vehicle: what do you have, why do you like it, and what do you not like? Auzzie-Phoenix General Talk 2978 1 Day Ago 01:01 AM
Pros, how did you get your start? K David Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 08-28-2014 08:31 PM
Do you start the timer when you start pouring? Jamey777 Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 11 12-20-2013 11:40 AM
How did you start your kid out? mattt Photographic Industry and Professionals 13 08-07-2013 01:06 PM
At what point do you shoot the horse ? daacon General Talk 15 04-08-2010 08:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top