[Charlotte]

Is it really worth watermarking or displaying copyright on images for display on web? Opinions on this + your reasons?

[Victoria]

Ummm I haven't probably 'coz I'm lazy.

I am aware that they can be copied and this sometimes worries me but I figure that at the size I'm posting you can't do too much with them anyway.

Would be extremely weird to see one of your own photos show up somewhere else on the web

I dunno....maybe I should be more diligent

[fionaB]

i dont really see a reason for it although i do it. as Victoria does all mine are low res. the reason mine are copyrighted is that i put it on the Tiff file, and thats the file i resize and im too damn lazy to take it off! lol

Fi

[Whipspeed]

I watermark all mine in the bottom left hand corner, it doesn't interfere with the photo's, but if they are requested by a cycling club for their website, it advertises my site. All the pictures are low res, 600pixels & under 100k.
I've seen some other cycling sites & the images are tiny, about 1/2 the size of mine & with copyright marks literally all over the image & most of the cyclists I know are put off by this.

[Boofers]

I sign my pictures, only I know where to look

[sejanus]

The way I see it, if someone wants to steal my pictures, that's something of a complement, so I don't do anything that'll stop them doing it.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any sign of it happening...

[Dave Canon]

Copyright is automatic when you create the picture so you do not have to mark it. The mark can serve to remind people and an embedded watermark could give your contact information so that a publisher could easily contact you if they wished to pay to use your picture. Generally photographs displayed on a web site are very low resolution so would not be any use for a glossy magazine in that form. However, I was recently told by a professional that a "cowboy Photography company" had used his photographs and (others) on their website to advertise their business. He and other professionals took action the prevent this. In this case the individual is not selling your picture but are misleading potential customers. It does pay to ensure that you do have adequate proof that you are the real owner which certainly might include the film or RAW file and EXIF data.

I personally am not trying to sell my photographs though occassionally I do get offer sso I do not watermark and only show very low resolution on web sites. If you do wish to promote your pictures, it is almost certainly worth being more careful but, at the same time, you want potential customers to see your pics. I am sure those who regulalry sell photographs could advise better.

[Charlotte]

Thanks for replies so far, + Dave for your in-depth view, very helpful. Next question ...

Is it possible to have an invisible watermark? i.e. it's embedded with the image file, but does not appear on the image itself. If so, how do you do this? Boofers, I think you're doing this ... I had a sneaky at your pic's + indeed could not see a trace of your signature

And what watermarking programmes, apart from CS*, are you all using + why?

[fionaB]

i think in photoshop you can use digmark, but you have to pay for it...........
This digitally embedss your information into the image file. or something like that. sorry i dont know much more about it

Fi

[Dave Canon]

When you use a watermark, you need to create a version of your picture with the watermark and this is the one you use for displays etc. You also need to keep an unwatermarked version. While the watermark may be almost invisible, it will deteriorate the image a little hence the need to keep a clean copy.

[Charlotte]

Thanks for that advice Dave, it's what I do when I have watermarked on occasion, but not really bothered with watermarking much yet, hence all the questions to find out what others are doing. I use iWatermark, d/l the free version ages ago, but it seems they don't distribute that version anymore (but it only costs $20 to buy).

Originally Posted by fionaB

i think in photoshop you can use digmark, but you have to pay for it...........
This digitally embedss your information into the image file. or something like that. sorry i dont know much more about it. Fi

Did a bit of googling Fiona, + it seems that the Digimarc way has its own price, apart from being more expensive than visible watermarking prog's ... it creates a digital signature, if you like, on a separate layer which it creates for this purpose, + although it is a very thin layer, it does degrade the image albeit minutely, + apparently it can be removed, so is not foolproof either

I quite like the look of the way you, + others, do your copyright signature, i.e. it sits on a separate frame outside of the image. I'd like to try this type of framing anyway, not necessarily with a copyright statement, but don't know how, please tell me how to do it