5th October 2012, 06:23 PM
I generally find large and bold logos on an image to be distracting at best and to sometimes absolutely destroy an image... I am not pointing fingers at any specific image but, just making this as a general comment.
I wonder if other members are also annoyed by exceptionally large and bold logos appearing on images?
5th October 2012, 07:03 PM
What often surprises me, Richard, is the large complicated copyright details (photographer's name etc) on distinctly third rate shots; which nobody would want to steal anyway.
When these images appear in the photo competitions they definitely don't get my vote.
OK, nobody wants to have a really good photo 'stolen' but I regard anything which I show on the internet to be available for public viewing/use with due credits. Although I do keep the resolution fairly low.
5th October 2012, 07:38 PM
There's quite a few images in recent mini competitions that did indeed lose at least one vote thanks to the logo/watermark...
5th October 2012, 09:22 PM
Logos are fine when not combined with photographs ?
6th October 2012, 03:41 AM
Personally, I do think that the photographer should sign his or her work, so long as it is small, tasteful and does not take away from the work. Painters and sculptors sign their works, why should photographers be any different?
As for the huge watermarks across the image, well that is something I have no use for. If it detracts from your work, it should not be there and in most cases someone with a reasonable amount of skill in PP would be able to remove the watermark with very little effort. Small, low res images can help, but if you don't want your work copied, don't post it on the internet...
6th October 2012, 11:57 PM
Originally Posted by revi
7th October 2012, 12:28 AM
I believe the signatures/logos/watermarks placed on the images as opposed to the frames are usually intended to protect the photographer from having their images stolen. Ironically, anyone who possesses just a moderate amount of skill can steal the image and get rid of the stuff that was intended to protect it from theft. In other words, if you don't want your images to be stolen, don't display them on the Internet; that's the only way to protect them from theft.
7th October 2012, 12:32 AM
I don't remember ever seeing a photograph that the photographer has signed a print on the image, as opposed to the margin or on the reverse side of the paper. To do otherwise is to break with tradition. Buyers of photographs tend to be slow to break tradition, so signing a print in the image area can be a significant challenge to selling prints.
Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver
EDIT: I actually have a Francis Frith print made in 1858 that bears his signature on the image. I wonder if this was accepted practice in the 19th century. I really don't know.
7th October 2012, 12:35 AM
Yep! Absolutely and completely!
Originally Posted by rpcrowe
Generally they stick fish hooks in my eyes and drag them directly to the logo with the force of a nuclear weapon.
7th October 2012, 12:36 AM
At least 2 votes ...
Originally Posted by revi
... and counting, I suspect.
Edit: Make that 3, and counting ...
Last edited by Colin Southern; 7th October 2012 at 12:47 AM.
7th October 2012, 12:45 AM
Perhaps the biggest difference is that with painters and sculptors - generally - it's a relatively small signature on a relatively large painting or sculpture, whereas with photographs, what we see on monitors are relatively small and yet the writing is comparatively larger and thus more distracting.
Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver
If photographers were to limit their signatures to 2 point text then I wouldn't have a problem with it (or as much anyway)
7th October 2012, 01:13 AM
By signature I don't neccessarily mean a traditional signature. I've seen many prints with either a logo or stylized photographic reproduction of the signature, some using a script type font and others using a scanned signature, either in the image itself, sometimes on the border of the print. I have seen these on a lot of professional photos. In the case of a framed print, I've seen the matt signed as well. That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, as the matt and print can be separated. In limited edition photos (I just checked a couple we have), there is both a signature and copy number on the front of the image, just like on a limited edition art print.
Originally Posted by Mike Buckley
To actually use a pen or other marker is not a good idea as the paper does get bruised and the inks and related solvents can damage the image, even through the back of the print.
All I can suggest is that there may be regional differences in these practices.
Regardless, some level of authentication of a work of art is desirable.
7th October 2012, 04:11 AM
Again? The "signature" whether it be a watermark indicating the business, photographer or title is part of what the originator wants in their photos and is therefore subject to any biases a reviewer carries. I personally hate photographer biased shots of cats and most other personal pets and find them equally as obscene as watermarks and would quickly bypass both on any requesting input. Textured anything is not far behind. That's just me and no different than why I like Francisco de Goya and think Picasso not worth a second look. (although I do like Dali so that's hard to figure) We all have our own quirks.
To me, acknowledgement while being discrete can be part of the experience. Most of the famous painters did not have flamboyant signatures yet they all used them and none detract from famous paintings. I don't mind and can appreciate a small signature in the corner of a an image. In photography, diagonal watermarks taking half the frame are amateurish in my mind but if the owner likes it who am I to say it's wrong. I usually only see them on team sports or school photos that are being shown as examples for purchase. Rather than pay $30 of a bunch of soccer prints if someone wants to steal the 72ppi shot and send it to grandma then you don't want their business anyway.
If someone specifically ask my opinion I'll tell them but until then, if I can't say something nice........ I also consider a properly conceived mat a very important and contributing part of the presentation whether it be a painting or photograph. Putting a title and print number on the face of the mat is equally as presumptuous yet my better half seems to like the little gold plates. It's all part of the experience for each of us.
Last edited by Andrew1; 7th October 2012 at 02:17 PM.
7th October 2012, 11:12 AM
I suppose one area which we haven't considered yet is people trying to get a bit of free advertising on prestigious sites like CinC.
This may work in a few cases, or at least the poster thinks it could work; but, as I mentioned previously, the photos need to be absolutely first class. Otherwise you are simply advertising your inexperience.
7th October 2012, 12:56 PM
I too have seen some electronic "signatures" on the bottom of prints that are small enough with just the photographers name. From the comments above, it seems just the name of the photographer added without the copyright symbol is more accepted than the name of the business - especially (name) PHOTOGRAPHY / IMAGES, etc. which turns it into a logo?
7th October 2012, 01:49 PM
For me, there's a difference between a signature (logo, watermark) on a print, and one on an on-screen image.
On a print (especially a fine art print), a signature has the same function as on a painting, i.e. the author certifying
the print as his work. As such, it has value. And, as Colin said above, on a print the signature takes up a small part
of the image (1-2 cm, say 100 pixels, high is more than enough in most cases, ad that's on a print that's >20 cm high).
And indeed, a proper matte and frame add to the presentation.
On-screen, the situation is different (for me!): most screens are small, so anything non-essential makes it more difficult
to appreciate the actual image. This can include borders, especially wide borders. Use a 100-pixel high logo, and you grab
over 1/10 of the available height...
So, on-screen, watermarks and logos are a lot more intrusive. And I don't really understand the need to use them
here, as we know who took the picture anyway (if you want to add business information, there's a signature block
available as well).
In other situations, a small signature can be useful (I have used a signature myself on some occasions, but to get credit,
not to prevent malicious action:
Last edited by revi; 7th October 2012 at 02:11 PM.
7th October 2012, 06:20 PM
Is there any reason to put the © symbol with the photographers name? Isn't the name alone enough to tell who took it or who the image belongs to? In my mind, just having the name tells me the image is "theirs" and I don't need a " © " to tell me that? Am I missing something? It seems to be a petty legal formality, not common sense.
7th October 2012, 06:27 PM
That might actually depend on the local laws. In France, there's no need to mention anything to get protection for "droit d'auteur", and there are actually some rights the author cannot transfer (like the right to attribution: any use of an image has to name the author).
And I normally don't bother putting any kind of signature on an image, this was a bit of a special case where I felt it might be useful to put my name on the image (wasn't done for CiC either )
7th October 2012, 06:46 PM
From my understanding it does make a difference in US law. Copyright infringement seems to come in two flavours; willful, which has higher penalties and unitentional infringement, which has lower penalties and is harder to prove (i.e. the defendent can claim he or she didn't know the work was copyrighted). If the copyright notification is on the image, it's a lot harder to suggest you didn't know the work was protected by copyright.
Originally Posted by Harpo
All that being said, the person whose work has been infringed upon still has to hire a lawyer and has to take the infringer to court.
I think that is more or less the gist of things.
9th October 2012, 03:01 PM
I agree that the logos are distracting from the beautiful photos posted on this forum, and sometimes the signatures, too. (unless small) However, I understand why people mark their work... even if the logo or the signature can be removed by someone with the technical skill. If they have to put forth the effort to remove the logo they may realize that copying the photo to use elsewhere is not right.
I've experienced having a few of my photos copied and published elsewhere, including on the inside cover of a major magazine promoting the Riviera Nayarit in Mexico, with no photo credit given. While part of me was mighty pleased to see my photo published (it was a pelican ) the other part was mighty miffed!
I created a community web site to promote the small town I live in, and naturally I included tons of photos of the area, community events, business photos, editorial photos, monthly newsletter etc... These types of web sites are a lot of work, and when your photos are copied and presented on other touristic web sites who can't be bothered to make the effort to take their own photos.... it's maddening!
As a writer, who frequently writes touristic articles and includes photos with her articles. (I visit the places I write about) it is exasperating to see that your photos have been copied for presentation on other touristic websites.