[pentax360]

After I figuring out how to batch watermark using GIMP and BIMP, and picked out a nice free font.
I then read some people saying not to watermark online photos and why others do, both sides have valid points.

I've read both sides, and I'm wondering just by the numbers what you guys think.

---

Last edited by pentax360; 04-01-2019 at 08:39 PM.

[brettday]

After I figuring out how to batch watermark using GIMP and BIMP, and picked out a nice free font.
I then read some people saying not to watermark online photos and why others do, both sides have valid points.

I've read both sides, and I'm wondering just by the numbers what you guys think.

Yes. I always watermark my prints if they are going on social media. I do it in such a way that it is not obtrusive and big enough to ruin the image, and I usually place it where it can be hard to shop out. Sure if someone is determined enough they will remove it, but I still like to make sure the majority of people know where that image came from.

[timb64]

Definitely no,ugly (and a tad pretentious for most of us,he said very provocatively )

I can,of course,understand pros wanting to protect their livelihood but not applicable to 99% of pics on social media.

Good subject for a vote BTW.

[Alex645]

I also appreciate the pros and cons and really there is no right or wrong.

To me the key to avoid both watermarking and avoid unauthorized use, is to only upload or share at a resolution high enough to look good on a monitor, but low enough that an enlargement would print poorly. But watermarking does help marketing and branding, so it makes sense for portrait and landscape photographers trying to "make their mark".

In general, my vote is no.

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't watermark anything I post, for a simple reason, for me I don't actually care. Sure I have had photos copied (even here on PF where someone took one of my shots and posted it as his own) but at the end of the day, since I am not in any way a professional, I see no point.

If it were a business and not a hobby, then that might change here on the forums, but not for general social media, unless I was to be using that as a means of promoting the business. You need to remember, that you own your images any way

[photolady95]

I only watermark those I sell and are printed. Not the online ones here or on Flickr, like Lowell says, what's the point in that anyway. People are going to steal them no matter what you do to try to protect yourself and your photos.

[ffking]

I went through a phase of watermarking, but then an external hard drive crashed taking most of my digital archive with it (long story as to why I temporarily didn't have other back up ) and the only remaining copies of some of my pictures on Flickr (and Panoramio) had watermarks on them. To lessons learned, as far as I'm concerned. (NEVER, for whatever reason, only have one copy of your images, and if you use social media to keep an extra jpeg back-up, don't watermark them )

[timb64]

One question,what constitutes “other” in the poll ?

Isn't it a binary choice,either you do,or don’t,watermark some or all your photos?Or am I being thick(again)?

[Larrymc]

One question,what constitutes “other” in the poll ?

Isn't it a binary choice,either you do,or don’t,watermark some or all your photos?Or am I being thick(again)?

What should it matter whether one "water marks" or has their name on their images to anyone else? Do either one you choose or some of both.......in the grand scheme of things who really cares but you, its not what others think.

[timb64]

What should it matter whether one "water marks" or has their name on their images to anyone else? Do either one you choose or some of both.......in the grand scheme of things who really cares but you, its not what others think.

My question wasn't meant to be a subjective assessment. It was: "In a yes/no question", as is being asked in the poll, what can the "Other" option be?

[Larrymc]

My question wasn't meant to be a subjective assessment. It was: "In a yes/no question", as is being asked in the poll, what can the "Other" option be?

Well, I actually didn't mean to respond to your post, apologies. I meant to post it as a general response, early morning mouse click mistake.

[BrianR]

I put my name in the corner of anything I put online. Yes, it can be removed. But I've seen many images that people have 'copied and shared' without credit but without nefarious intent, having the mindset 'I found a cool thing and want more people to see it'. Watermarks sometimes survive this type of sharing around. Often I want to find the original source to see more of the person's work and also to point out that people should give credit when throwing images around the internet.

For batch watermarkers, this was a neat article from a couple years back about automating the removal of automated watermarks, and how to limit the effectiveness of this automated removal Google AI Blog: Making Visible Watermarks More Effective

[timb64]

Well, I actually didn't mean to respond to your post, apologies. I meant to post it as a general response, early morning mouse click mistake.

We've all been there

[UncleVanya]

To date I have only watermarked my physical prints and those are pretty subtly marked. I also place a sticker printed with my photography name, email, etc on the back of the print and on the back of anything framed or matted.

There's an assumption that people make about laws and the legal system that I can't understand: that anything of a legal or statutory nature could "protect" persons and property. That protection only exists when the law actually restrains all violative behavior. E.g., the places with the strongest "gun control" laws in the U.S. are generally also the places with the highest rate of criminal homicides. If one person is determined to violate the law, then the law is no protection. And the function of law enforcement is not to protect anyone or anything ( the U.S. Sup. Ct. has repeatedly stated this in its opinions), but to identify crimes and apprehend the persons responsible AFTER a crime has been committed.

But, with respect to things like watermarks on pictures, there is a good reason for doing it. When I was doing litigation for a living, I often had to tell clients that the time for getting evidence together is before you need to go to trial. They'd come to me wanting help with some case about three weeks away and not having a clue about the evidence they'd need to win - and at that point, there's not much hope. That's why people have written contracts - so that after there's some problem that needs litigation, there won't be any question about evidence of contractual intent. So my opinion is that watermarks are worthwhile, if there's any chance you could ever wish to file a copyright infringement suit. Not that you plan to do so, or even think at the time of picture-taking that the product will be valuable. But if you see your photograph used as background on a TV commercial, you may change your mind - and at that point you'll want evidence that it's really your picture. Also, one thing that musicians and other authors have been doing for a really long time is mailing copies of their works to themselves in a well-sealed envelope which they don't open until they're in court, to prove the date of authorship by the postmark (some use registered mail with signature required). If a photographer were to print off and mail himself a batch of photographs every three months, for example, he'd be able to later prove both authorship and date of first publication. Contact prints (i.e., "thumbnails") would be sufficient if they adequately identify the subject matter.