Watermarks & Copyright

[i_worship_the_King]

Reading the "Theft" thread got me thinking about what is the most effective way to protect my goods while causing as little pain to the customer as possible. Therefore while sitting in a meeting today I came up with a fist full of proposals. I've also included notes on how they were made.

The purpose here is to consider new techniques for foiling programs and users who would clone over copyright so they can get free copies for social networking sites, or just to e-mail to buddies.

As usual, C&C are welcome and expected. In addition, if you promise not to steal my photo of the little boy you're welcome to intentionally attempt to remove any of the watermarks and post your results. I think it would be inappropriate to post techniques but for the sake of testing effectiveness we should test how easily these things are removed.

Lastly, feel free to post your watermarking technique and/or an example.

Listed in no order whatsoever (other than I named the files 1...5)
1) Microprint
I like this because it leaves color intact, and leaves no free area to clone from.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/1-1.jpg

2) single line text + bevel + emboss -> Soft Light layer mix

Tried and true, litte intreference to the customer, easily removed with a variety of tools.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/2-1.jpg

3) #2 w/ multiple lines (angle)

Very obtrusive to the customer, but seemingly impossible to get rid of.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/3-1.jpg

4) Glass distortion (blocks)

Very little intrusion (in fact maybe not enough). Downside of if you zoom out even a little the distortion from the blocks is almost null.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/4.jpg

5) White box -> opacity 75%

Easy and no distortion, but screws up colors.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/5.jpg

6) Light print -> opacity 50%
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/i_worship_the_king/6.jpg

(#6 added for polling)

[gus]

You have just taken watermarking to a level i didn't think could exist.

[ShepsMom]

You have just taken watermarking to a level i didn't think could exist.
What he said :agree

Thank you for posting those, it's quiet interesting to see each different prespective. Hmmm......

[~Jan~]

You have just taken watermarking to a level i didn't think could exist.

Gosh, me too! :roflI can't imagine I'd sell many portraits if my clients were choosing from that! Of the samples you gave, the only one I'd ever dream of showing a client is the 2nd one, and even that is a big attention-grabbing to me. I want the client to focus on my portrait, not the watermark.

I just do a simple (c) 2008 and then my biz name right across the center.

[denisegoldberg]

I guess it depends on the patience of your potential clients. Most of the watermarks you are showing take away from the photo, making it impossible to see the quality of the photo or to see if the shot is one that might interest your client. My immediate reaction when I open a gallery that is watermarked to the extent your shots are is to close the gallery. No sale.

I do understand the need for watermarks across the photo - even though I freely admit that I don't like them. I just think if you take the watermarking as far these examples that you are removing any possibility of a sale.

--- Denise

[chuckinsocal]

I was thinking about this last night and here's what dawned on me:

Instead of the watermark saying "Copyright 2008 My Wonderful Photography Company", which is all about the photographer, make the watermark say something that's all about the customer. For example, if you shoot a wedding, the water mark might say Mary's Happy Day. Sporting event photos might say "This Team vs That Team 03/20/08. Etc, Etc Etc ... you get the point.

You could spread this watermark accross the face of the image in a semi opaque manner which is obvious but doesn't take TOO much away from the photo so it can't be cropped off without ruining the whole image. The actual copyright notice could be in small print off in a corner somewhere just to cover your butt.

My thinking is that the customer will perceive the larger watermark as being friendy in nature and saying "Buy Me" instead of the standard watermark which basically says "This picture is mine and you cant have it until you pay me" which, while true, could be perceived as hostile and create resentment in the mind of the potential customer.

Just a thought. Maybe a dumb one, but a thought none the less.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

[Mulder32]

I like Chuck's idea, even though it means more work for the photographer. It seems far less confrontational, but still achieves the purpose. Maybe a watermark that says "Please buy me!" would be general enough. Just an idea.

[~Jan~]

Hmm...but the whole point of a watermark is to "brand" the photo, no? I really think it needs to have MY name on it. That way, when (notice I didn't say if) people copy my images for use on Myspace or other online places, my name is on them.

[chuckinsocal]

Hmmmmmmmmm ... well ......

How 'bout we put the "customer friendly" watermark in larger hollow font accross the face of the image then underline it with or otherwise embed a microfont that has your name and copyright notice. Now we have a "customer friendly" watermark and your branding both at the same time. Just another thought (and those are so rare these days).

As for more work for the photographer, there are numerous batch watermarking programs out there that run from free to about $30.00 that allow you to set the wording, font, size, color, opacity, placement, etc of the water mark then put them on a whole folder of photos with one last click.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

[bham]

My immediate reaction when I open a gallery that is watermarked to the extent your shots are is to close the gallery. No sale.

I do understand the need for watermarks across the photo - even though I freely admit that I don't like them. I just think if you take the watermarking as far these examples that you are removing any possibility of a sale.

--- Denise

Due to technology and ability and knowledge of thieves, more and more obvious and difficult to remove watermarks are a necessary and prudent to product your investment. Its like trying on clothes in a changing room with a video camera, or an pants with a security sensor. In todays world its reality. If someone was seriously interested in what I was selling a little inconvience is usually accepted. If they run due to a watermark I doubt they were seriously a potential sale.

Parents are gonna look at their kids photos, watermark or no watermark.

[mbellot]

Parents are gonna look at their kids photos, watermark or no watermark.

I disagree.

Faced with images like 1, 3 or 5 in the first post I wouldn't go further than the first picture, regardless of whether or not my kids were in them.

#2 is typical of what I use for my SM images (if a bit stronger than I care for), #4 is odd but not overbearing.

When I think about watermarks I prefer them like the real thing (bond paper). They do not detract from what you are actually looking at, but they are unmistakably there none the less.

[bham]

Matt,

#1 to close together. Spaces the lines out, like every third line. It might make it somewhat less obtrusive.

#4 & #5 new ideas that I haven't seen.

#3 I use a similar one but its repeats less.

An example:
http://mcleod.smugmug.com/photos/181727483_ji3YS-M-1.jpg

Actually this is a smugmug tiled watermark. Uploaded a single line of text at a 45 degree angle.

[bham]

I disagree.

Faced with images like 1, 3 or 5 in the first post I wouldn't go further than the first picture, regardless of whether or not my kids were in them.

#2 is typical of what I use for my SM images (if a bit stronger than I care for), #4 is odd but not overbearing.

When I think about watermarks I prefer them like the real thing (bond paper). They do not detract from what you are actually looking at, but they are unmistakably there none the less.

Well I guess we agree to disagree. You think they don't, I think most would. I guess someone could do a survey to find out the %. Only way to really find an exact answer. Actually for all the watermark discussions lately it would be some really valuable info to all of us.

#1 could work better if you could get it where, like those artistic photos, where you can see the image if you choose a different focus point with your eyes, then the watermark would kinda fad into the background.

[JDub]

I like your watermark Bham, its unobtrusive and pretty tough to get rid of. The one I had (before theft thread) was one simple one across the face "Copyright" in black bold arial font, about 80% opacity. Still got rid of it, without losing any face detail. Kinda impressive.

[i_worship_the_King]

Thanks for the comments everyone! I guess I didn't make it clear, but I'm not actually using any of these styles. I was just considering what is the upper bound of what a customer would tolerate that provided me with the absolute maximum amount of protection.


[added poll and 6th frame, closer to what I would normally use outside of this experiment]

[bham]

I like your watermark Bham, its unobtrusive and pretty tough to get rid of. The one I had (before theft thread) was one simple one across the face "Copyright" in black bold arial font, about 80% opacity. Still got rid of it, without losing any face detail. Kinda impressive.

Thanks thats about what I wanted, tough to get rid of but also unobtrusive enough to see the photo, even if it annoys a little. Finding that balance was my goal. Thanks for the feedback that I got that balance.

[denisegoldberg]

Thanks thats about what I wanted, tough to get rid of but also unobtrusive enough to see the photo, even if it annoys a little. Finding that balance was my goal. Thanks for the feedback that I got that balance.
I agree that you definitely found that balance. As you saw from my earlier post, I hate obtrusive watermarks. Yours allows me to enjoy your photos even though it extends across the image.

--- Denise

[MichaelKirk]

I hate to say it (.....well, not really) - if you used any of these watermarks on your website , I'd leave in about 2 seconds. All of these are really, REALLY annoying. The 2nd one is ok, but distracts from the image as well.

Good Luck, :rofl
Michael

[MichaelKirk]

and if you go to the story to try on those pants and the security measures have them so wrapped up that you cannot even see the product, are you going to hang around and try them on or just leave.......me, I'm leaving!

Personally I think people that are stealing screen prints were going to buy from you in the first place....putting such watermarks on your images is not going to make them now decide they will buy instead.

just my opinion,
Michael


Due to technology and ability and knowledge of thieves, more and more obvious and difficult to remove watermarks are a necessary and prudent to product your investment. Its like trying on clothes in a changing room with a video camera, or an pants with a security sensor. In todays world its reality. If someone was seriously interested in what I was selling a little inconvience is usually accepted. If they run due to a watermark I doubt they were seriously a potential sale.

Parents are gonna look at their kids photos, watermark or no watermark.

[bham]

Personally I think people that are stealing screen prints were going to buy from you in the first place....putting such watermarks on your images is not going to make them now decide they will buy instead.

I think you made a typo and it should have been "people that are stealing screen prints weren't going"

I agree that they probably weren't. But why should I make it easier for them to steal. Won't that just encourage it.

[bham]

Poll isn't a bad idea, but realize you are polling photographers, not the general public.

[evoryware]

As a private citizen, I think the third one is repulsive.


:rofl

the rest don't really bother me because I can see the picture.

[bham]

As a private citizen, I think the third one is repulsive.


Yeah because #3 the text is white, black and some transparent it is way to distracting. Just by being solid one color it would be less distracting.

[~Jan~]

Matt,

#1 to close together. Spaces the lines out, like every third line. It might make it somewhat less obtrusive.

#4 & #5 new ideas that I haven't seen.

#3 I use a similar one but its repeats less.

An example:
http://mcleod.smugmug.com/photos/181727483_ji3YS-M-1.jpg

Actually this is a smugmug tiled watermark. Uploaded a single line of text at a 45 degree angle.

That is a very tasteful watermark. Most portrait photographers watermark in very simple ways. I spend tons of time reading blogs and visiting websites of other photographers, and I've never seen an obtrusive watermark. Yes, we have to have security just like stores do, but that security cannot interfere with sales. Once again, you should look at a photo and notice the photo first, not the watermakr.

[bham]

That is a very tasteful watermark. Most portrait photographers watermark in very simple ways. I spend tons of time reading blogs and visiting websites of other photographers, and I've never seen an obtrusive watermark. Yes, we have to have security just like stores do, but that security cannot interfere with sales. Once again, you should look at a photo and notice the photo first, not the watermakr.

Thanks Jan.

[claudermilk]

I agree, Scott's watermark is probably the best balance of protection & unobtrusiveness I've seen. It doesn't really get too much in the way of the image to see it, but would be such a PITA to eliminate, only a truly dedicated thief would bother. It's so good, I keep thinking about how I can swipe the idea for myself (imitation being the most sincere form of flattery. :D ).

All the OP's examples are over the top. I wouldn't touch any of them personally.

[bham]

I agree, Scott's watermark is probably the best balance of protection & unobtrusiveness I've seen. It doesn't really get too much in the way of the image to see it, but would be such a PITA to eliminate, only a truly dedicated thief would bother. It's so good, I keep thinking about how I can swipe the idea for myself (imitation being the most sincere form of flattery. :D ).

All the OP's examples are over the top. I wouldn't touch any of them personally.

Thanks Chris.

If I did the same watermark horizontally (which I started when testing ideas) I found it much more obtrusive. For some reason putting it at the 45 degree angle it is easier for the eye to look past it. (That was the goal for it to present but something you could "look past")

I did a short explanation of how I did it here for any of those less experience in creating watermarks.

In photoshop, new file, created layer clear, then changed background layer to regular layer and made it black. Did the type in white, then Edit, transform rotate. Did -45 degrees. Saved as a psd (so if you want to come back and edit the text without having to start from scratch) , then delete the black layer and saved as a .png and interlace none.

Upload to smugmug and then create watermark, tiled, whatever % fade. (recommend doing an 50%, 60% and 70% and I usually use around 60%, but sometimes 50% & sometimes 70%)

One important note. I usually create multiple copies of it with the image size from 100 x 100 pixels to 300 x 300 pixels. The smaller ones repeat more once tiled.

[Markjay]

What size font did you create this original watermark in? I tried something similar and one font size was too large and looked goofy tiled, the other was too small and covered the photo in a way that I would not tolerate as a viewer. I ended up settling on something more classy and unobtrusive but, I still LOVE the tiled watermark done in this way... now if I could only reproduce it (with my watermark that is :-)

Thanks and thanks for sharing!



Matt,

#1 to close together. Spaces the lines out, like every third line. It might make it somewhat less obtrusive.

#4 & #5 new ideas that I haven't seen.

#3 I use a similar one but its repeats less.

An example:
http://mcleod.smugmug.com/photos/181727483_ji3YS-M-1.jpg

Actually this is a smugmug tiled watermark. Uploaded a single line of text at a 45 degree angle.

[Markjay]

I spent SOOO much time working on a watermark I could live with myself for. IT's important to me to have the viewer see the photo, enjoy the photo but, still understand I take my photogrphy seriously enough to at the very least discourage the casual theif.

The watermarks you displayed are not flattering to your photography in any way shape or form. But, I'm a conservative type (in some ways) and low key and minimalism are what I strive for... it kind of represents my style of photography.

Good luck.

[bham]

What size font did you create this original watermark in? I tried something similar and one font size was too large and looked goofy tiled, the other was too small and covered the photo in a way that I would not tolerate as a viewer. I ended up settling on something more classy and unobtrusive but, I still LOVE the tiled watermark done in this way... now if I could only reproduce it (with my watermark that is :-)

Thanks and thanks for sharing!

File is a 200 pixel by 200 pixel file, 2in by 2in at 100 resolution. Font is Engravers MT at 12pt font.

[hindsy]

gotta let the customer see the product! I've seen guys with sights that have the copy and paste right click disabled... ????

[Andy]

Here's what I've been using:
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/111118721_jGuWQ-XL.jpg

[redleash]

Andy-

What size is your actual watermark file? My image files are sometimes different sizes (depending on which camera they are from) but I want the watermark to look the same in its dimensions. By choosing "scale watermark" in my Aperture export, will that take care of it?

Also, I like the "X" mark you used. I'm going to "steal" it if you don't mind. :D

Appreciate any guidance.

Thanks,
Lauren

[Andy]

I'm going to "steal" it if you don't mind. :D

Appreciate any guidance.

Thanks,
Lauren
freely available, here: http://nancyrose.smugmug.com/photos/313533129_L2Go7-X3.jpg]

you can see the sizes, too, once you put them in Photoshop.

[gus]

I've seen guys with sights that have the copy and paste right click disabled... ????
As do most of us that use SmugMug. First line of defense.

[NikonsandVstroms]

gotta let the customer see the product! I've seen guys with sights that have the copy and paste right click disabled... ????

My website is like this, but that's because I made my own flash galleries. If you use any sort of flash, you cant right-clickand save so they would have to go through the process of a print screen and then cropping out your photo.

If you haven't done much with flash, Photoshop has a few built-in flash galleries with its automatic web gallery creation tool

[Marlowe]

I like the tiled watermark so much I decided to create my own. Until now I have been using the Smugmug "proof" on mine.

To quote bham:
"Upload to smugmug and then create watermark, tiled, whatever % fade. (recommend doing an 50%, 60% and 70% and I usually use around 60%, but sometimes 50% & sometimes 70%)"

I've figured this all out, uploaded to Smugmug,but I can't find a "tile" option for the watermark when creating it. All that is there is the fade tool. Can anyone lead me in the right direction?
Thanks!

[bham]

I like the tiled watermark so much I decided to create my own. Until now I have been using the Smugmug "proof" on mine.

To quote bham:
"Upload to smugmug and then create watermark, tiled, whatever % fade. (recommend doing an 50%, 60% and 70% and I usually use around 60%, but sometimes 50% & sometimes 70%)"

I've figured this all out, uploaded to Smugmug,but I can't find a "tile" option for the watermark when creating it. All that is there is the fade tool. Can anyone lead me in the right direction?
Thanks!

Its an option under "location". You have center, tile, top, right, left, etc. The option directly above fade and below thumbs.

[Marlowe]

Thanks, I saw it this time. Maybe I'm blind but first time I tried to make into a watermark I didn't see "loction" anywhere!

[nobody]

As do most of us that use SmugMug. First line of defense.

Right-click protection is more like a speed bump than a padlock -- easy to defeat with CTRL-printscreen. Granted, they are only getting a print of the screen, but if it's not watermarked, they could certainly get a big enough file to print a 4 x 6. I don't know that it's still possible, but in the old days, you could defeat right click protection by temporarily disabling javascript and saving the jpg directly to your hard drive.

In my opinion, watermarking is the first line of defense, and right-click protection is optional. I always use watermarks, but I am somewhat undecided on whether to right-click protect.

[Marlowe]

I stilll use both but have thought about enabling right-click. It's amazing but some people have copied my photos in the past and claimed them as their own, even with my watermark on them. Now they just link to a photo on my albums on their face book (thanks statcounter). People will take your photos with screen capture tools so you might as well watermark; at least you'll get photo cred!