Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Advice re: Copyright Notice / Watermark for Use on Website  (Read 71393 times)
eaglerock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« on: July 10, 2009, 05:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

In another LL forum string, a couple of members mentioned that the copyright notice / watermark I was using on my website was too large and obtrusive and needed to be moved out of the center of the image to one of the corners.  Basically, they said it was so distracting that it made them not want to look at any more photos on my site.  Obviously using a watermark that results in this is counterproductive, so I've made three new versions of my watermark and would welcome feedback on them.

Re: the use of a watermark, I've struggled balancing good presentation aesthetics with adequate protection of my images.  While using a small watermark in a corner is probably sufficient in most cases, for some photos, due to their composition, I feel that it would be pretty easy for someone to crop out 10-15% of the image to remove the watermark and then use the recropped image.  I am significantly less concerned with someone doing this in order to make a print for personal use than to misappropriate an image for commercial use.  

Here is the original watermark I've been using throughout my site:

Large and Centered

Here are the new watermarks I've created:

Still Centered, But Smaller and More Transparent

Upper Right Corner

Lower Right Corner

I plan to use one watermark in a single position throughout my site instead of moving it around to different spots depending on the photo's composition (which would be too much work).  Any advice re: all of this?  Also, if you would recommend a different style watermark than the ones I've created, I would welcome seeing an example and advice on how to create it.

Thank you!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 07:48:15 PM by eaglerock » Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2009, 06:17:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

I checked out one of those images; the larger version is 1280x1200, very low quality save, corresponding to max. 4.5"x4". Is that a customary size in commercial dealing with landscape shots?
Logged

Gabor
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2009, 06:36:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Gabor: people who are ok with a ~72dpi print are unlikely to be also potential customers for fine art prints. Therefore when someone prints out a photo of yours, it's not a lost sale - but possibly a sale when someone else sees the print and wants a high-res print for themselves.

The watermarks in corner look reasonable to me. If you want to make it visible in both light and dark images, you need to add a stroke or some glow to the watermark, though.
Logged

eaglerock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2009, 07:12:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks very much to both of you for your feedback.  If we're only talking about 4.5"x4", downloading is not really a concern.  Sounds like I should go with a watermark in the corner, keep it small, make it more opaque and add a thicker stroke (the one I used was only 1-2 pts).  

But before I make the universal changes to my website, does anyone with experience using a watermark think that I should keep it in the center and just reduce its size and its increase its transparency (or have another suggestion for the watermark)?  Thanks.



Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7441



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2009, 10:42:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

I was one of the original complainers. I haven't yet used a watermark myself, so I'm just giving my opinion as a viewer.
Of your new versions, my preference is for the lower right corner. A bit more opaque and a thicker stroke would keep it from disappearing in images that have lots of detail in that corner.

Do let us know when you have modified your website. I, for one, look forward to having a much better viewing experience.

-Eric M.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
michaelnotar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 01:41:14 AM »
ReplyReply

unfortunately it is impossible to protect yourself completely. a small in the lower right corner, or left corner/sides if its too distracting in the BR.

did you know the act of cropping the notice is a crime in itself...circumnavigating copyright protection measures. it also almost proves they knew what they were doing was wrong and still did it...makes for more $ if it goes to court.

on my site. www.shutterworksphoto.com i keep all my images to 500p on the long side, i have a warning box on my home page thats a bit detailed but just a few lines and under each image in my portfolio i have (photog name)

i have seen websites that when you click on the portfolio page it redirects to another full page with notice info, then it has enter portfolio button on the bottom...very annoying.

a local portrait studio heavily watermarks their proofs. they type over ALL the image, (Studio) professional photo, do not copy (and repeats this over), lines of text probably appear 5-8 times on a proof with that phrase repeated.

and i have heard stories of people printing a proof with the proof waterwmark across the center and framing it and putting in in their living room on a coffee table/
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 01:50:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michaelnotar
did you know the act of cropping the notice is a crime in itself...circumnavigating copyright protection measures. it also almost proves they knew what they were doing was wrong and still did it...makes for more $ if it goes to court.

In the US you can only claim punitive damages if you have registered the work in question with the copyright office. DMCA circumvention is probably a separate crime or an offense in itself as you imply.
Logged

michaelnotar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2009, 01:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
In the US you can only claim punitive damages if you have registered the work in question with the copyright office. DMCA circumvention is probably a separate crime or an offense in itself as you imply.

true and i always do. its so damn easy $40 for a years worth of images! from what i understand and i am not a know it all, DMCA is an extension of law/update for it the new times. and it also includes new penalties.
Logged
AndreG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2011, 05:57:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I just had to jump in. I shoot equestrian competitions and offer the photos on the Web. Well, some brag that their wall is a tapistry of my work with the logo on it. I had some who wrote to ask how to get rid of the logo. Others complained that the local print shop did not want to print a photo with the logo. One was offering prints with a milder logo erased, on and on...

I also shoot Orchids and again I offer the photos with a normal corner logo on the Web but without sales.

Will I reduced the obstrusive logo? NO! Look up istockphoto they do it. If it is good for them it's good for me but it always depend on your audience and market.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2011, 11:01:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The topic is 2 years old...
Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2011, 06:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Google "stock photos" and look at what the stock sites do. They all use watermarks and many photographers complain that they aren't big enough, too big, not in the right spot, too ugly, etc. The fact is that images get stolen with or without the watermark. Many get used even with the watermark showing! What's with that?
I don't bother with them on my site as the images are very small sizes and would look really ugly if printed. I've had some unauthorized use on other websites but not enough to worry about.
Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2012, 09:11:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Cyberspace is flooded with images.  I don't bother with watermarks.  Are you losing money because of image theft?  I like the Grateful Dead's approach.  In the end they made more money than they would have if they banned audience recordings of their concerts. 
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2012, 05:53:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I just had to jump in. I shoot equestrian competitions and offer the photos on the Web. Well, some brag that their wall is a tapistry of my work with the logo on it. I had some who wrote to ask how to get rid of the logo. Others complained that the local print shop did not want to print a photo with the logo. One was offering prints with a milder logo erased, on and on...

I also shoot Orchids and again I offer the photos with a normal corner logo on the Web but without sales.

Will I reduced the obstrusive logo? NO! Look up istockphoto they do it. If it is good for them it's good for me but it always depend on your audience and market.



My short answer to this:

http://www.roma57.com/music-1.html

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2012, 05:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The topic is 2 years old...




And still topical today!

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad