How to Showcase Underwater Photos - why do people watermark pictures?

[sea_ledford]

The most useful aspect of a watermark is for marketing. If you have a bunch of great photos in circulation with your name on them, people know where to go for more of the same. Whether or not you make money that way or doing it for the likes is a different conversation. There is money in it with enough likes.

I've had a photo taken off of facebook and used for a magazine cover. That was fun. I was working for a state agency at the time, using their equipment, on their time, so copyright ownership was muddy to say the least.

I tried to make money off photography for a while... the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

 

[doctormike]

The most useful aspect of a watermark is for marketing. If you have a bunch of great photos in circulation with your name on them, people know where to go for more of the same. Whether or not you make money that way or doing it for the likes is a different conversation. There is money in it with enough likes.

I've had a photo taken off of facebook and used for a magazine cover. That was fun. I was working for a state agency at the time, using their equipment, on their time, so copyright ownership was muddy to say the least.

I tried to make money off photography for a while... the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

I think that we are talking about two different things.

The idea behind a watermark is that it deliberately degrades the image so that it can't be used as is, forcing people who want to use it for any purpose to get the original. Putting your name or website in the margin of an image might be done using watermarking software, but that's not what I would consider a watermark.

If you want people to freely share your images for marketing purposes and don't trust people to give you a citation, then you can just put your name in either an external border (like a signed print), or unobtrusively on the edge of the image where it doesn't significantly degrade the image. That's fine, but that's not watermarking.

 

[Sifossifoco]

The images published on the web are already low resolution. Anybody willing to use them for commercial purposes would need the original high definition file. Yes, somebody may copy the low definition image and put it on a small website: are you going to take them to court for that? A cease and desist letter is the standard practice for these cases, or better a request of attribution. In the past Getty Images started harassing a lot of owners of tiny websites for using their images. The reality was that most of those images were copies of copies of copies that jumped from one website to another and the users didn't even know about the original copyright. Getty Images had a crawler, not sure if they still have it, roaming the web looking for their pictures. They must have invested good money in that, buy I doubt they recovered a penny. Writing your name and contacts on a pic you publish is good marketing, but a huge watermark makes no sense, in my opinion.

 

[sea_ledford]

I think that we are talking about two different things.

The idea behind a watermark is that it deliberately degrades the image so that it can't be used as is, forcing people who want to use it for any purpose to get the original. Putting your name or website in the margin of an image might be done using watermarking software, but that's not what I would consider a watermark.

If you want people to freely share your images for marketing purposes and don't trust people to give you a citation, then you can just put your name in either an external border (like a signed print), or unobtrusively on the edge of the image where it doesn't significantly degrade the image. That's fine, but that's not watermarking.

I agree with you, except watermarking is commonly considered either style now. I was thinking a small signature, not "PROOF" written across the entire image.

 

[GRH]

I usually watermark my images for a number of reasons. The two main reasons are:

1) Not really relative to this thread but as a Professional Sports Photographer, not my primary job, I am under strict legal restrictions associated with the credentials provided me in order to shoot professional events including the NFL, MLS, MLB, PGA, NCAA, International Soccer, etc. To protect myself I watermark my images because if my images are used out side of the T's & C's my credentials will be pulled and future access denied. On my portfolio web hosting site or other public sources I showcase my images I add a disclaimer similar to;

The images are from the portfolio of GRH. They are presented here for your viewing pleasure. These images may not be copied, linked to, printed or used elsewhere in any way and are protected by copyright and the terms and conditions of the NFL.

2) While I make some money as a Professional Photographer, I shoot out of a passion for Photography and have an income without it. I work with and know a lot of people where Photography is their main source of income. Not much of an issue in highly regulated T’s & C’s associated with Professional sports where I'm protecting myself, but in plenty of other areas out of respect for those photographers where photography is their main source of income, I don’t tend to give my images away so as not to take business away from them and I watermark them so they aren’t used without consent or at least someone needs to make an effort to clone out my watermark..

I don’t enter contests for a related reason, just read the contests T’s & C’s and if they take full ownership and rights to use and sell your images without compensating you, I am not interested.

With so many people having access to quality equipment, and many of these hobbyists not interested in making money but thrilled to get published or recognized, business for professionals is getting harder and harder.

If you visit photography forums catering to professionals you will read very spirited discussions unhappy with amateurs giving away their work Even when the quality is not up to the level of professionals it is difficult to compete with free. Add the reality that many amateurs produce professional level work and you can hopefully understand my sympathies.

I’m not judging those that choose to give their work away and don’t think badly of them if they do, I just personally choose not to in most cases for the reasons above.

And as a note, all your images are protected by copyright but in order to sue for copyright protection your images need to be registered.

 

[bvanant]

I think that the idea of a $10K fee is not actually the fact. According to the University Copyright office to claim infringement the copyright holder must have a valid copyright, and the penalties can range from $200 to $150K.
I don't know about written works, but photos are copyrighted when you press the shutter button, you don't need to file with the copyright office. Of course all copyrighted photos are allowed to be copied for fair use (product review, teaching, etc.). In most cases that I know if you comply with a simple cease and desist letter then you will likely not be sued unless you have egregiously used thousands of other peoples photos for money making.
Best idea is to not steal anyone else's photos. As for professionals being unhappy with amateurs giving away photos then my answer is you are the pro, take better photos. Better quality will mostly win out I think.
Bill

 

[Gene]

I do shoot for a living and have since college in the 80s. I don't use watermarks, but I have my name and info in the metadata. I mostly shoot professionally for film and television studios/production companies, so in that case they usually own the images although I can use them for self PR. Most of my underwater images are done for, and by me alone, so that's different. And yes, photography has changed across the board since I started in the 70s as a kid. I grew up with my dad shooting for local papers and wire services. Always had cameras and a darkroom to use. Good times.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The copyright statute provides an option to elect "statutory damages" in an amount a court has a lot of discretion over: 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits.

If someone uses your photo in a magazine ad or something, well, then okay, maybe it's worth pursuing. On the internet, if they take down the photo when you ask them to, it's over. A legitimate business will likely do just that. If they ignore you, or you can't reach anyone, that's a problem. If they don't take it down, and you can identify who you're dealing with and they are more than just some shadowy figure on the internet--a legitimate business with a place of business (in the US you hope) and some kind of assets--then you might decide to file and pursue a lawsuit. Assuming you hire a lawyer, this is going to cost you many thousands of dollars and possibly crawl along for years. No lawyer is going to take a case involving a couple of underwater photos that show up on some small business's web site on contingency. If you actually manage to get a judgment from a court, then you get into the phase of having to recover the award from the infringer. They might not just cut you a check. If he drags his feet, or is out of business by that point, you might have to go after his pickup truck! Then the guy vanishes. Hire a private investigator to track him down? The roadblocks to getting even a little satisfaction are endless.