Originally Posted by Pure Energy How does the new "stolen from" watermark differ? Couldn't they just photoshop that out too? I did receive a suggestion that even thumbnails should be watermarked because those are good enough for some things as well now.

Guess my response wasn't clear. I went from a watermark tiled across the image at 50% opacity. That is when someone had bragged that they had photoshoped it out, I guess since you could tell what was originally under it, it made it easier to heal out using photoshop. So I went to full opacity and then added stolen from. The image is too low res to make a decent print, but I have found what happens most is that they want to share it with others on facebook. So I regularly have to send some DCMA notices to facebook. The individuals usually learn then, as facebook then won't allow them to upload a photo for a month.

Whilst the discussion about the 'mechanics' of watermarking is of some interest, I find it more intriguing - in view of the fact that the OP is a w/life photographer - that some other well known practitioners don't bother at all.

(last added as thought might be of general interest to OP)

eg
http://www.dannygreenphotography.com/
http://www.northshots.com/
http://niallbenvie.photoshelter.com
http://markhamblin.com/
http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/

pp

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Whilst the discussion about the 'mechanics' of watermarking is of some interest, I find it more intriguing - in view of the fact that the OP is a w/life photographer - that some other well known practitioners don't bother at all. pp

Not a bad catch. And an interesting viewpoint.

But I am sure there are many other Wildlife Photographers, that DO employ Watermarks, as do the Stock Agencies.

----------

But it only took one Copyright Infringement for me to change my outlook on this matter. It was when a Nationally Known and Awarded Artist purchased some on my prints at a Fine Art Outdoor Art show, for the sole purpose to "copy" them into his paintings. And while purchasing them, never mentioning who he was or what he was going to do with them.

And then that "Artist" actually used a projector to COPY every single feather and pose of my photos, (I overlaid a Transparency of my photos over his "Artwork" and it matched feather for feather.) into his Five foot tall Painting, that he intended to sell for at least $5,000.

To make matters even worse, he made his real money with "Limited Edition" Prints from this infringement of my photos. Selling editions of 1,800 or so. Ranging on price from $80, to $40 Wholesale. So he could have easily made over $75,000 from COPYING my photographs. Without a penny to me or any acknowledgement to me. Not that I would have settled for an acknowledgement.

And then my head really exploded off my shoulders, when I read an article in a big newspaper about him, where the reporter just praised the "Artist" for REALLY capturing the special "characteristics and feelings" of the birds in his paintings and that is what made "his" painting so special. WHAT a bunch of BS!!!!!! He did NOT capture anything. He STOLE my images and used them as his own. I was one who sat for hours on so many days, shooting roll after roll after roll of Fuji Slide Film, trying to capture just those special moments and the "Essence" of those birds. And I did it. Not him!!!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!



Let that happen to you once and see how you feel about preventing others from doing the same thing!....

-------

Not to mention all of a sudden finding out some large company has been using my photos without my permission or payment to me for years and years and in many products.

-------

I think it is a little reasonable to be kind of Gun-Shy about the theft of images, so the thief can NOT make tons of money off photographers, skills, sweat and hard work, without paying the photographer one dime.


----

PaulThePhotographer

Originally Posted by PaulThePhotographer But I am sure there are many other Wildlife Photographers, that DO employ Watermarks, as do the Stock Agencies.

Indeed there are ... but there's certainly a fair number around that don't ... or use fairly small / insignificant ones that are easily removed etc.

One aspect with the (very) well known wildlife photographers could possibly be their revenue obtained from running courses / workshops / tours etc + having a fair range of 'regular, respectable' customers for their output?

Originally Posted by PaulThePhotographer Let that happen to you once and see how you feel about preventing others from doing the same thing!....

You, together with anyone else in a similar situation had every right to be hopping mad.

It is, however a somewhat different situation from what's been discussed upto this point in a way ... because even a (very?) heavily watermarked image could have been used as a reference image for a painting /drawing, methinks ... let alone a fine art print that (presumably) wasn't watermarked in a conspicuous manner.

One of the few (possible) approaches that might be a way around this is to adopt the 'picture in a picture' route.
eg the frame on the website depicts a small detail of the original image, with maybe 25% of that frame showing the whole pic.
That way, viewer gets both an impression of the whole pic and the level of detail - in one frame.


The rip-off scenario sort of reminds me of an individual (US iirc) who used to have a pitch at a very well known (official) street market in London, also selling large drawings (not paintings).

His pitch was between mine and the gents, so, over the years, one got to see stuff ... like the massed rolls of prints in his van, together with the 'pretend' adding of the finishing touch ... as prospective punters were walking by.

Whilst I thought these antics laughable and it didn't bother me personally (or commercially) I saw how it affected some of the really good (water colour) artists.

pp

I would like some feedback on my image watermark. Like others that have posted here, I have had folks copy my images and use them on Facebook. I switched my watermark to cover more of the image, but I kept the opacity so as to not disturb the image too much.

I was thinking about watermarks yesterday when I was watching tv. There I am watching a popular show on TNT and realized that the TNT logo was watermarked in the corner for nearly the entire show, if not all of it, as well as there being other logos somewhat cluttering the bottom edge. Think about it.

If you really loved that show or recorded a bunch of shows to watch later, does that tiny watermark prevent you from recording it on your DVR, VCR or Betamax and watching it later? I'm sure for some of you there are shows you've recorded and won't even consider buying official copies... ever.

It's the same thing with images online but worse in many respects.

I forget who said this and I don't have any data to back this up, but it was like... "the more agressive the watermark, the more you will sell."

Originally Posted by jonrider I would like some feedback on my image watermark.

First off, I'd go with less opacity and add in the color blue from your logo to tie in more to your brand. Or at the minimum, make some adjustments so that the focus corners or text does not blend in too much with certain photographs. You want someone to clearly see all focus corners not half of them.

No matter what style you go with, I would consider adding something similar to the watermark used by http://www.matebence.hu/ . I remember a photo I downloaded a long time ago for research and I enlarged it on my screen to check out the details. That's when I noticed the extremely tiny little words: "company's name" repeating over every inch of the photograph with very little to no spacing between words and lines. They were so subtle in comparision to http://www.matebence.hu/ that if anyone thought they got away with cropping out watermarks in the corners they would be in for a surprise if and when they tried to upsize the image for viewing or printing. To stress the importance of watermarking by this company, I think the site only had three images posted online that were meant for downloading.

Originally Posted by jonrider I would like some feedback on my image watermark. Like others that have posted here, I have had folks copy my images and use them on Facebook. I switched my watermark to cover more of the image, but I kept the opacity so as to not disturb the image too much.

IMHO

I personally do NOT like including the Year on the image! It dates the image. I have licensed some images that were very old.

I also would NOT worry about "disturbing the image too much". Again I have licensed images with large obtrusive watermarks without a problem.

But, honestly, there is something that kind of bothers me about your watermark. I can't really put a finger on it. Maybe it is the large Text across the middle of the image. My brain seems to constantly to want to "focus" (no pun intended) on the words, and thusly, make it hard for me to visualize the image behind it. That is why on my watermark, I made the text smaller, and off center, and centered a large © symbol, which is also shadowed, to make it harder for thieves to retouch the main point of the image.

Also, I am a fan of "Stroking" the text with the opposite color, to show the watermark on light AND dark colored images.

No offense meant. Just giving my two cents worth.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy No matter what style you go with, I would consider adding something similar to the watermark used by http://www.matebence.hu/ . I remember a photo I downloaded a long time ago for research and I enlarged it on my screen to check out the details. That's when I noticed the extremely tiny little words: "company's name" repeating over every inch of the photograph with very little to no spacing between words and lines. They were so subtle in comparision to http://www.matebence.hu/ that if anyone thought they got away with cropping out watermarks in the corners they would be in for a surprise if and when they tried to upsize the image for viewing or printing. To stress the importance of watermarking by this company, I think the site only had three images posted online that were meant for downloading.

I looked pretty close at his spoonbill photo, and I am not sure that the "Watermark" on that image would be very hard for someone to remove. On the bird itself, the watermark only seems visible on a small section of the body. Even when "zoomed in"! And with photoshop and other photo manipulation software out there, I would think it would be pretty simple to select the background and put a little blur on the background, and the watermark would be essentially gone.

----

I believe that is why the new "Getty" watermark is better. With a larger squared part of the image being opaqued completely different than the rest of the image, it would be a "LOT" harder to use software to match or fix that large section of the main point of the image.

IHMO

PaulThePhotographer

Originally Posted by PaulThePhotographer I personally do NOT like including the Year on the image! It dates the image. I have licensed some images that were very old. I also would NOT worry about "disturbing the image too much". Again I have licensed images with large obtrusive watermarks without a problem. But, honestly, there is something that kind of bothers me about your watermark. I can't really put a finger on it. Maybe it is the large Text across the middle of the image. My brain seems to constantly to want to "focus" (no pun intended) on the words, and thusly, make it hard for me to visualize the image behind it. That is why on my watermark, I made the text smaller, and off center, and centered a large © symbol, which is also shadowed, to make it harder for thieves to retouch the main point of the image. Also, I am a fan of "Stroking" the text with the opposite color, to show the watermark on light AND dark colored images. I looked pretty close at his spoonbill photo, and I am not sure that the "Watermark" on that image would be very hard for someone to remove. On the bird itself, the watermark only seems visible on a small section of the body. Even when "zoomed in"! And with photoshop and other photo manipulation software out there, I would think it would be pretty simple to select the background and put a little blur on the background, and the watermark would be essentially gone. ---- I believe that is why the new "Getty" watermark is better. With a larger squared part of the image being opaqued completely different than the rest of the image, it would be a "LOT" harder to use software to match or fix that large section of the main point of the image.

Some good advice Paul.

Originally Posted by Pure Energy I am also looking to use the following different watermarks to use beyond the standard "PROOF" that I am currently using for many of my photos: Bottom right corner (already designed & mentioned in an earlier comment). light color text with a darker color for an outer glow Used for photos that get published Color can be easily changed for whatever reason Outer glow may be removed for those publishers that don't like it. Also Used on galleries for friends and families (password protected) similar to how simple locks are used: to keep honest people honest. Diagonal text is tiled (repeated) several times across the image One similar to yours posted above: Bottom right corner has a signature and your web address Big C symbol in the middle Centered text below the Big C symbol Watermark option three is the type of watermark that is too complicated for the SmugMug (SM) help desk to advise on how to create, so if you have any suggestions please help. What pixel size png image is the best size to create for one watermark using option 3 that looks great for vertical photos as well as horizontal photos? Will the text be in the bottom right corner as well as whatever is put in the center of the photo be centered for both photo orientations?

Earlier I wrote in this thread about some different types of watermarks I wanted so here's an update on what I've learned.

I have a few galleries that have had relatively no traffic in quite awhile and at the low prices the prints are... there should be no reason someone can't afford prints of the whole gallery. Thus, I don't really care how obtrusive the watermark is.

A few rules I'm using are

• nice bright vivid colors for the text with a darker color for the outline
• an outer glow to tint the area around the text
• and 100% opacity (which I don't know when or if I'll ever make easier to see through)

First simple watermark was for friends/family and was in lower right corner:

photo by me

Then I got a hold of a family member's photos so I threw them up on my site with a 2-lined watermark in the lower right corner:

©2012 relative's name
www.mysite.smugmug.com

Those two lines don't look too bad to me so I might consider changing some of my galleries to that.

Second (not so) simple watermark was for those co-workers/frenemies that are getting a great deal on some photos but mostly do not appreciate it. For this group, I wanted the big standard "PROOF" from SM centered as usual but with my name in the lower right corner.

"PROOF" (centered vertically and horizontally)
"photo by me" (in lower right hand corner)

Easier said than done but I needed my name in the lower right corner to relatively match the size of my name in the other above mentioned watermark. Since I was going with a slightly different font, there was an immediate noticeable difference. I don't recommend changing fonts but I wanted this particular font for this group. And I don't recommend changing colors, but I did that too since both the font and the color matches the style of that group. I haven't changed the outer glow color but that probably should be changed some other day when I'm bored.

First step was to look at SM display sizes at http://help.smugmug.com/customer/por...-display-sizes. Not sure how a watermark would be upsized in case I go with a larger display size sometime, but I chose to make this watermark sized at 600x800 for horizontal photos.

After centering the big bold "PROOF" in a solid vivid color, I then added my name to the lower right corner. Then I did a few tests on matching up font sizes and changed my watermarks in the galleries. Unfortunately, the watermark squishes my name and puts it nowhere near the lower right corner on vertical photos, so I needed a new vertical watermark. You'd think a new watermark at 800x600 would be good to go... but it's not. So I had to take a look at the actual display size of a vertical medium-sized image on my site (450x300) and I simply doubled it to 900x600 for the watermark I would create in Photoshop.

watermark for horizontal images --- 600x800
watermark for vertical images --- 900x600

I haven't looked at all of the photos I've just watermarked with this new watermark but I did notice two similar group photos that the watermark makes it very hard to know who is in the photo or which group shot is better. At the price I've listed prints at for these few galleries, they should print them both but it'll be interesting to see what happens when the gallery is made known to the people in the photo.

And until someone notices and gets word to me, I'm in no rush to play around with the opacity levels on a few galleries that are at the highest risk to be jacked for free or spread onto FB for free. If ever there was a photo gallery in need of a watermark to obstruct the images... this is it and now I've got a watermark ready for it and any other galleries I should choose.

What's left of my three different watermark styles to discuss is the watermark I'm choosing for the majority of my images... the tiled diagonally watermark.