How to Showcase Underwater Photos - why do people watermark pictures?
- Thread starter skippy311
- Start date
-
- Tags
- photography watermark
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm sure that many people will disagree with this, but I don't think that watermarks are important for the vast majority of underwater photographers, especially if you aren't selling your images.
I'm not a pro, but I have done a ton of UW photography in many environments. I have given UW photo talks at an international dive expo, I co-direct a local UW photo club, and I have a few covers out there from a few years ago.
Here's one argument against them. Here's another. Here's another...
From an aesthetic point of view, any watermark big or bold enough to actually prevent image theft makes the image look terrible. So few people really make serious money doing this, that it just seems to be either a non-issue financially. Many of them make amateurs look like posers. And for pros, there is some evidence that watermarking may actually hurt your bottom line.
As far as sharing underwater images, the ones that people will be most happy to get will be pictures of themselves diving, and why would you watermark those? If you give them to a friend or a dive buddy, they should credit you if they post them. And if they are just underwater shots of sea life or fish or whatever, people may like to look at them, but there are endless galleries of amazing UW photography and video out there for anyone who just wants to see the undersea world. Hard to imagine a scenario where the watermark would make a difference in one's life.
My 2 psi. I might be wrong.
I'm not a pro, but I have done a ton of UW photography in many environments. I have given UW photo talks at an international dive expo, I co-direct a local UW photo club, and I have a few covers out there from a few years ago.
Here's one argument against them. Here's another. Here's another...
From an aesthetic point of view, any watermark big or bold enough to actually prevent image theft makes the image look terrible. So few people really make serious money doing this, that it just seems to be either a non-issue financially. Many of them make amateurs look like posers. And for pros, there is some evidence that watermarking may actually hurt your bottom line.
As far as sharing underwater images, the ones that people will be most happy to get will be pictures of themselves diving, and why would you watermark those? If you give them to a friend or a dive buddy, they should credit you if they post them. And if they are just underwater shots of sea life or fish or whatever, people may like to look at them, but there are endless galleries of amazing UW photography and video out there for anyone who just wants to see the undersea world. Hard to imagine a scenario where the watermark would make a difference in one's life.
My 2 psi. I might be wrong.
D_Fresh
Contributor
People watermark their images because there is so much copyright infringement online these days. If my image(s) ever show up on someone else's for-profit website or monetized video, you better believe I'm going after them for the $10,000 award for winning a copyright lawsuit for Unregistered material. The award goes way up if the image is registered with the copyright office.
Easy way is to design a unique logo and place it where it's visible, but not distracting. A bit of transparency is helpful here.
Personally, I use Lightroom, CaptureOne (Sony), and/or Photoshop. But many other apps/programs can do this easily.
There's a standard $10,000 award for that? I mean, I have heard of people suing to have unauthorized use of copyrighted material taken down. But I'm not sure how you would expect to actually recover money, unless you could prove a loss which sounds like it would take up a lot more than $10,000 of attorney time. And the award is more if it's registered with the USCO?
In any case, how would a watermark help you win such a lawsuit? If you are actually talking about going to court, where you could prove that it's your work (prior IPTC data, etc...) what does the watermark do?
I'm not being facetious, and I'm not a lawyer, I'm just genuinely interested. Seems like a shame to degrade an image for such a long-shot payday...
D_Fresh
Contributor
I'll have to go back through my photography bookmarks, but yes, I believe there's a basic "standard" for unregistered material infringed upon, and an even higher award possible if the image is already registered. I will update this later, after my coffee... LOL
The watermark is useful in that, if the image used still has the watermark, it's quite obvious that it's your material. And even more award is possible if the violator has cropped the photo to cut off the watermark, because that shows "willful intent to infringe."
As far as in court, if you can provide the original image, with the supporting metadata, and "adjacent photos", it will be quite obvious to the court that it's your original material.
Dunno... I had never heard of that before, but I have heard of plenty of cases of people finding their work shared without authorization and getting it taken down, which seems to be a much more likely outcome.
If there was some standard prize of $10,000 for that, why wouldn't everyone just take it? I'll believe you if you have a link or something, but it sounds like an oversimplification of a legal process.
So again, if you don't need the watermark to prove that a work is yours in court, then that's not a reason to do it. The reason to do it would be to discourage unauthorized use in the first place, because the watermark ruins the unauthorized image.
A watermark doesn't prove anything in terms of showing a judge that it's your work. I could stick my watermark on any digital image, it doesn't mean that I can then claim that it's mine in court, right?
If there was some standard prize of $10,000 for that, why wouldn't everyone just take it? I'll believe you if you have a link or something, but it sounds like an oversimplification of a legal process.
So again, if you don't need the watermark to prove that a work is yours in court, then that's not a reason to do it. The reason to do it would be to discourage unauthorized use in the first place, because the watermark ruins the unauthorized image.
A watermark doesn't prove anything in terms of showing a judge that it's your work. I could stick my watermark on any digital image, it doesn't mean that I can then claim that it's mine in court, right?
To be honest, I really don't know how that would be done if that proof was crucial for a big legal case. I'm sure that there are forensic imaging experts who could tell you. I googled a bit but didn't find much. I would think that IPTC data might be helpful, but I guess that can be edited? Maybe the adjacent images as @D_Fresh mentioned above..?
Getting back to your original question, I think that watermarking is more for discouraging unauthorized sharing than for litigation. I posted a few arguments for why I think that it's rarely necessary in this context, but of course you may feel differently.
You didn't give us much background as to your photography - are you doing this to make money?
My advice is, if this isn't a business for you, but you are doing it because you love imaging the underwater world, then take your images and share them widely without intentionally degrading them. That's what I do.
It makes me happy, and it makes my friends and dive buddies happy. It's a joy to share them. If someone were to take one of my images and use it without attribution (which happens from time to time), it doesn't really matter that much to me in the scheme of things. I mean, I would appreciate attribution, but whatever...
I can't imagine a scenario where a watermark would make me enjoy UW photography more. But you do you.
To be honest, I really don't know how that would be done if that proof was crucial for a big legal case. I'm sure that there are forensic imaging experts who could tell you. I googled a bit but didn't find much. I would think that IPTC data might be helpful, but I guess that can be edited? Maybe the adjacent images as @D_Fresh mentioned above..?
Getting back to your original question, I think that watermarking is more for discouraging unauthorized sharing than for litigation. I posted a few arguments for why I think that it's rarely necessary in this context, but of course you may feel differently.
- it would be to discourage unauthorized sharing I guess. Everyone seems to do it on FB so I am curious about if it is the done thing for UW photographers.
You didn't give us much background as to your photography - are you doing this to make money?
- I dive often, have lost a few cameras and obtained a few cameras. Perhaps in the future I would like to do something constructive with the images.
My advice is, if this isn't a business for you, but you are doing it because you love imaging the underwater world, then take your images and share them widely without intentionally degrading them. That's what I do.
- so no fancy watermarks then
It makes me happy, and it makes my friends and dive buddies happy. It's a joy to share them. If someone were to take one of my images and use it without attribution (which happens from time to time), it doesn't really matter that much to me in the scheme of things. I mean, I would appreciate attribution, but whatever...
I can't imagine a scenario where a watermark would make me enjoy UW photography more. But you do you.
Getting back to your original question, I think that watermarking is more for discouraging unauthorized sharing than for litigation. I posted a few arguments for why I think that it's rarely necessary in this context, but of course you may feel differently.
- it would be to discourage unauthorized sharing I guess. Everyone seems to do it on FB so I am curious about if it is the done thing for UW photographers.
You didn't give us much background as to your photography - are you doing this to make money?
- I dive often, have lost a few cameras and obtained a few cameras. Perhaps in the future I would like to do something constructive with the images.
My advice is, if this isn't a business for you, but you are doing it because you love imaging the underwater world, then take your images and share them widely without intentionally degrading them. That's what I do.
- so no fancy watermarks then
It makes me happy, and it makes my friends and dive buddies happy. It's a joy to share them. If someone were to take one of my images and use it without attribution (which happens from time to time), it doesn't really matter that much to me in the scheme of things. I mean, I would appreciate attribution, but whatever...
I can't imagine a scenario where a watermark would make me enjoy UW photography more. But you do you.
It really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing, it matters what is important to you. So if unauthorized sharing of your images is something that you really don't want, then watermark away. All I'm saying is take a few minutes to figure out if that's actually an issue for you before you deliberately degrade an image that you worked hard to make perfect.
Pros use a watermark so that people can get an idea of what the image looks like, and then they will buy it to get the image without the watermark. If that's not a process that is important to you, then I wouldn't bother.
Pros use a watermark so that people can get an idea of what the image looks like, and then they will buy it to get the image without the watermark. If that's not a process that is important to you, then I wouldn't bother.
Similar threads
