Question about Watermarks

[Donald]

The question, Louise, invites the comment -'That depends on the law within your jurisdiction'. Clearly you are talking about the law where you live. If that follows the general principles about the law relating to copyright that, generally, are the same across a lot of the world, then the answer to your question is, probably, 'No, you would not be infringing copyright'.

You are not using this for commercial purposes, unless you are using it part of a training course for which you are charging a fee.

In the strictest sense, making a copy of the image; i.e. copying it onto your computer could be construed, in some places, as infringing copyright. But, we are living in the real world. Any photographer who puts his or her images online knows that they will (if they are any good) be used by someone for something. A photographer of repute is not going to pursue any action against you for making a copy for the purposes you have stated in your message.

[wlou]

Thank you Donald. Ther is no money value attached to this. If there were an internet connection were I want to show these pictures to my freinds, I would simply open the Carl Kleiner site and show to them the pictures in questions, or if I had a book of his work. As you said we are now in the modern world and it is the computor that is my newspaper, my books, my radio/tv, etc.
The legal language is hard to understand sometimes, and I have no intentions to do something illegal. Thank you for your answer.

[Colin Southern]

Your help please!Copyright. What would constitute copyright "illegal action"? I found a great site of a great photographer:Carl Kleiner. I would like to show two of his photos to my little group of amateur photographer. On his site there are no markings on the pictures but if you click "store", there is a long description of theirs rules for commercial use.
My question is: Is it leagal to copy/paste a picture on your personnal computor to show to your freinds or is it against the law?
Your help would be much appreciated on this.

I'm no lawyer, but normally, using an image in this way for non-commercial educational purposes is fine. Plan B might be to simply pop them an eMail and ask them?

[digitalboyhr]

I use a signature instead of watermark. But I use it to write my website url so if someone look a photo can visit my website. I usually check other photographers photos and then look for them in google to see their job. Is the only reason why (as I understand) "watermarks" are usefull. If you don't want a photo to be stollen, just publish them in a low resolution format.

When I release a photo to a person I do it without any watermark I know the usability of this photo, if not, the photo should be paid, and then the user is free to do whatever he/she wants with it.

This is my opinion about watermarks.

[Sidekick]

Hi all,
What an interesting debate.
While I understand the arguement for watermarking and / or signatures, I fall into the category of people that don't do it - and here's why....
....I understand why a photographer may want to try and protect any possible commercial value he or she may feel an image might have - but - it has to be said that the best protection for any image you have that you feel may have a commercial value is to sell it first and don't put it on the internet.
You don't have to search too hard on the web to find sites for stock photographers whose business is based upon selling images for use on the internet - I guess for them copyright protection must be a nightmare.
And many of them deal with the nightmare by simply offering copyright free images - this may appear strange but it has a pragmatic logic - someone uses one of these copyright free images then at some point in the future they want another one, can't find exactly what they want so they contact the original snapper and either buy what they want from his / her stock (that aren't on his / her website) or commission something.
We live in a picture hungry world - with the internet crossing every geographical boundry a single photo translates better than any written word. But with nearly everyone who has access to the internet also having access to the technology to take and post an image on the internet, then getting yours noticed above all the noise must be incredibly difficult for all those trying to make a living out of this passion of ours.
So what better way to do it than give away a few free samples - big business does it all the time.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Mike,

I think that many over-estimate the likelihood of their work being used by others, but even then - personally - I think it's important to draw two distinctions;

- One where work is stolen - is used commercially - and the artist if left out of pocket. I don't think this happens a lot - I'm certainly not aware of it happening to me - and I think it's accurate to call my work "commercial quality" (it sells anyway!)

- The second is a nail 'em / jail 'em / litigate against 'em mindset where some folks seem to get all bitter and twisted at just the thought of the possibility of someone else using their work without their approval (and/or compensation). Honestly - and personally - I find this an "extremest" mindset - almost as if they'd rather destroy every image they've ever taken rather than let so much as one person use a single image without permission. Honestly, are they or their images really that precious?

In the case of the second group, the artists often cite "having to stand up for their rights because if they don't then nobody else will". In my opinion, it's a free world in that they're quite welcome to pursue that line of litigation if they wish, but personally, I've got better things to do with my ever decreasing remaining years on this earth than to get all bitter and twisted over things like that. In my mind it's kinda like being prosecuted for stealing a cheap pen by accidentally putting it in your pocket instead of returning it to whoever loaned it to you; technically it's theft, but life is just too short to worry about small stuff like that (IMO)

[jcuknz]

I don't pirate images but I have removed watermarks in editing as an exercise to prove to myself just how easy it is and I'm sure the pirates are a lot cleverer than I am with editing. I realised a long time ago that the only protection I had was firstly that my images have no commercial value and the honesty/ethics of the viewer. so why mutilate your images? If you want to advertise yourself it is very easy to increase canvas size and put you name whatever beside the image.

[Colin Southern]

I don't pirate images but I have removed watermarks in editing as an exercise to prove to myself just how easy it is and I'm sure the pirates are a lot cleverer than I am with editing.

Tools like content aware fill - and a reasonably accurate selection - mean it can often be done in just a few seconds. (it's a technique I use from time to time to remove customers automatic date stamps).

[Donald]

This question comes up with depressing regularity (that's not a criticism of those who raise it) and there's often a lot of heat generated but sometimes, depending upon how able people are to listen to and consider alternative views, very little light. I have to confess to wondering why some people can never seem to come to terms with the concept of trying to frame the discussion in what others call the 'real world situation'. So let me try and frame the issue in another way and pose some questions:

• If I take one of your images that you post on here, remove your watermark, add my own normal frame and 'DMacK' signature and post it up on another 6 forums and stock photos website (that I am not a member of), what are you going to do about it? (ps: there's been another discussion thread related to this and as an exercise I did exactly what I've said here. Took me about 2 minutes)
• If your decision is to pursue me legally:
  
  • If you're not in Scotland, which jurisdiction are you going to pursue that through - the Scottish Courts or the Courts in your country?
  • If you choose to raise action in the Scottish Courts is the likely gain (even if you do win) going to be greater than the costs you've incurred?
  • If you choose to pursue this in the Courts of your country - "Tough, I ain't coming". How are you going to get me there? Extradite me?
  • Even if your Courts consider your case in my absence, how is your country going to give effect to any penalty the Court imposes ? Freeze my assets in my UK Bank Account?
  
  
• If your decision is to take matters into your own hands and deal with me quietly and quickly, I have to warn you that I am a crazed Scotsman descended from those who perfected the Highland charge in battle and who brought terror into the hearts of battle-hardened professional soldiers (watch Braveheart again). Just so as you know.

Like I say, I think we've got to locate this debate in the real world.

[William W]

Like I say, I think we've got to locate this debate in the real world.

Hear Hear!

I need not storm your Castle . . . in the real world, these days, there are many social media and forums in which this topic is discussed and people are outed without any legal actions as such.

As one example: Sean Peele.

WW

[wlou]

Hello William, I checked, rapidely, the Sean Peele tread you supplied. The possibilities are scary of what one can do with anything we put on the net. Its called "the net". It catches everything. Any fisherman with knowledge can retrive anything. Its like trowing something in the sea and saying "look but dont touch".
As it is a brand new phenomenon (occurrence, event, happening, fact, situation, circumstance, experience, case, incident, episode), here to stay, new ways/laws/rules will have to be invented to deal with it.
The alternative would be to stop communicating on the net and this is highly unlikely.

[William W]

The possibilities are scary of what one can do with anything we put on the net. Its called "the net". It catches everything. Any fisherman with knowledge can retrive anything. Its like trowing something in the sea and saying "look but dont touch".

No.
Not scary.
But rather I believe that I simply - "framed the discussion in a 'real world situation'."

WW

[Manfred M]

As a desgn engineer (and enthusianstic amateur photographer on the side) I always marvel at the amount of effort and cost it takes to get patent protection, which runs for a relatively short period versus the (at least theoretically) low cost and super long term protection I get every time I press my shutter release. In addition, international treaties provide me with protection in many other countries around the world. If I wish to register my copyright, the cost is a fraction of what patent registration costs.

For a patent, one has to engage a patent agent (lawyer), pay filing fees for patent examination, patent maintenance fees and you have to do this in every country where you want patent protection. All of this for 20 years from date of filing, not date where the device actually gets to market and starts making money. To boot, you have to repeat this in every country you want patent protection. After expiration, anyone can copy my invention that can (and usually does) take years of work to create. If I did not get a patent in another country, someone in that country can copy my invention and sell it without me having any legal recourse. All they have to do is to browse through the patent applications to "steal" my invention.

Sorry folks, I have very little sympathy for stolen images. If you are that worried, the answer is simply; don't post them on the internet and if they are stolen there is recourse, if you are willing to make the effort and take the risks (financial and legal). Just remember how little the copyright protection actually costs you and somehow I've always figured you are getting exactly what you have paid for...

[Andrew1]

Well Andrew you sure opened a can of worms with your original questions didn't you? Thanks for that. It seems that with any discussion regarding just about any aspect of photography, (or golf, or politics, or whatever) you get a few on the extremes at both ends and the majority somewhere in the middle. As I hope most people do, I typically deal with them all as I do with environmentalists. Throw out the garbage spewed by the extremists and search for a more balanced answer for myself. In any case, it is rare that someone’s personal well-informed opinion is going to be skewed by another person’s rant. Over a thousand views on this thread and I’d suggest little if anything has been changed with anybody’s own feelings on the matter.

What I do find curious is the negativity it has brought out within an established forum. The net has always included a group whose relative anonymity gives them something to hide behind but that is usually relegated to public opinion columns of newspapers and similar sites. Some responders here have belittled other people’s photo submissions, some implying that it’s your own fault if someone illegally uses your photo, or taking a theoretical position of pretty much saying “Yeah, I stole it! What are you going to do about it?” (How would you like to live next door to someone with that attitude?). If you can’t trust your friends,……

In the world of digital information, it seems to be generally accepted that respect, personal honesty and just doing what’s right seems to have gone the way of film. Too bad.

[The Blue Boy]

Back to the original question as to why people watermark their photographs, I think it's purely because they can and it validates (for them) their originality of that image. Personally I have no problem with this as I just don't bother looking at the picture if the watermark is distracting. Sometimes it can look nice if it's done subtly, say in fine art photography.

I'll tell what I do hate though. Excessive borders. You know what I mean. Here's one I made to take the mick and make my point.

[Colin Southern]

. Here's one I made to take the mick and make my point.

I think it looks quite cool

[Colin Southern]

It seems that with any discussion regarding just about any aspect of photography, (or golf, or politics, or whatever) you get a few on the extremes at both ends and the majority somewhere in the middle.

Except that in this case the "extremists" appear to be those who either like watermarks or don't mind watermarks ... the vast majority (73.08%) "hate them hate them hate them" and feel that they're "distracting and totally ruin the image".

So when someone asks for feedback - and I (along with 73.08% of others) find that they've used a watermark that's ruined the image - what are we supposed to do? Just pretend everything is OK? (does that help the presenter?) Do we just not critique the image? (does that help the presenter?).

To me that's a bit like someone going to see the doctor and he says "well, you could benefit from losing a couple of pounds - that scratch is healing nicely - oh - and BTW you've also got a gunshot wound that's bleeding profusely, but we won't talk about that because that's outside the scope of what you wanted to hear".

Often folks don't agree - and that's fine - but so long as the arguments are reasoned and not a personal attack - then personally, I don't have a problem with them.

[Carl in Louisiana]

Often folks don't agree - and that's fine - but so long as the arguments are reasoned and not a personal attack - then personally, I don't have a problem with them.

I hope that my comments have not been taken on a personal level, but just stating how I think, but that doesn't always make me right.

In the real world thats called agreeing to disagree and still be friends. I don't always agree with everyone and thats okay cause they don't always agree with me, but we are still friends in the end, I hope. I personally would not have it any other way because it would sure make for a boring world. Some people however take disagreeing as a personal attack and there is nothing that can be done to make them think otherwise. So far I have not seen that here, I don't think. As with any disagreements a little heated conversation does come about. After all is said and done everyone walks away a little better for it because we all learned a little different view from others.

However I still reserve the right to my on opinion and will not change it at the drop of a hat just to please another in hopes of gaining a friend. That is not being a true friend in my book.

[Colin Southern]

I hope that my comments have not been taken on a personal level, but just stating how I think, but that doesn't always make me right.

Hi Carl,

No, you're fine -- it's just that some of the posts are starting to get a little "pointed". I'll possibly close the thread shortly, as I think we're starting to get more heat than light as they say.

[dan marchant]

• If your decision is to pursue me legally:
  
• If your decision is to take matters into your own hands and deal with me quietly and quickly,

Like I say, I think we've got to locate this debate in the real world.

But you missed the real world solution from your list. People don't need to go to the expense of suing or need to confront a Scotsman waving a Claymore. They just send a DMCA take down notice to the web host and the image will be removed. Even hosts outside USA are (in most countries) subject to similar safe harbour laws and all have infringing copyright as a breach of their terms of service.