Originally posted by GUB This one I think
Thanks, that's it.
Originally posted by Kiwizinho Interesting choice of CC license.
Many years ago my brother came across one of my photos being passed off as someone else's. The site in question had a clear policy and contact link to report issues, which I did, and got absolutely zero response. After that I got carried away with watermarks for a bit before realising that I generally hate them on other people's photos when done to excess. I eventually came around to the fact that a small number of people are going to make/take copies regardless of what I do, while the majority who just want to enjoy the picture are going to be annoyed by an imposing watermark. I therefore settled on "as long as you're not making money, have at it." Only recently I have changed some of my best shots to a full copyright and put a much stronger branding on them, more as a sense of pride than any expectation they will be left alone by the copiers.
I have also demonstrated to myself that watermarks need to be very imposing before they're immune to someone with a little skill removing them anyway. I've seen some people put their simple copyright text up in the middle of the picture so it cannot simply be cropped out, but it
can be simply removed by modern editing software like Photoshop or Affinity Photo. So you literally have to do an overlay on the subject, and even then if you're too subtle it can often be removed.
You may note on my images I often make the watermarks very pale (I simply adjust the opacity to suit each photograph) and always in the corners (usually the bottom, occasionally the top when the photo demands it) so they are easily cropped out. The flip side is the permissive licensing encourages non-commercial users to just leave it in, which is a bonus for me.