Watermark your images!

jmphotocraft

Two weeks ago I shot a soccer tournament for 12-14 year old boys and girls. 9 games. I've seen very few action shot sales. Good thing I contracted in advance for $10 per head in exchange for team group photos.

Anyway, I bumped into a friend yesterday who has a daughter on one of the teams. She told me my images are all over facebook, complete with watermark. The pics are right-click protected, not sharable, and external links disabled. These 12-14 year olds are saving screenshots or getting the images out of browser cache.

At least I'm getting "free advertising", for whatever it's worth. Here is my watermark...



I'm surprised someone would consider that usable, but I don't know what else I could do without making the image unseeable.

Anyone ever made a watermark that says "this picture is stolen"??

JohnBiggs

jmphotocraft wrote:

She told me my images are all over facebook, complete with watermark. These 12-14 year olds are saving screenshots or getting the images out of browser cache.

At least I'm getting "free advertising", for whatever it's worth. Here is my watermark...

I like that watermark, it would be distinct even in a thumbnail size.

I wouldn't fight 13 year olds and facebook. Its gonna happen. Figure out other ways to monetize.

Marlowe

I like the "this picture is stolen" idea! Wish I could use it though. I shoot at bike races where guys have more than one bike sometimes worth 5K or more each, pay quite a bit to enter a race, not to mention travel & accomodations, yet they don't think twice about copying my watermarked images, or linking to them from facebook (thanks, statcounter) rather than paying for a cheap download.

I occasionally will send a small image with an unobtrusive watermark at the bottom to some of the younger riders (their parents won't buy?) for their facebook and inevitably I'm overwhelmed by requests for more after the next race.
I agree with John Biggs, I like your watermark the way it is.

I found a post involving one of my (hevily watermarked) images on another forum, and the racer was happy that he could get an image like that and not have to pay for it! For every theif out there there's others who are honest, appreciate what you're doing, and will support you.

Jon

James H

jmphotocraft wrote:

Two weeks ago I shot a soccer tournament for 12-14 year old boys and girls. 9 games. I've seen very few action shot sales. Good thing I contracted in advance for $10 per head in exchange for team group photos.

Anyway, I bumped into a friend yesterday who has a daughter on one of the teams. She told me my images are all over facebook, complete with watermark. The pics are right-click protected, not sharable, and external links disabled. These 12-14 year olds are saving screenshots or getting the images out of browser cache.

At least I'm getting "free advertising", for whatever it's worth. Here is my watermark...

I'm surprised someone would consider that usable, but I don't know what else I could do without making the image unseeable.

Really? You're surprised that 12-14 year old kids would want to share watermarked photos of themselves with their friends, on their facebook pages, without consulting copyright laws, and without whipping out their credit cards and paying for a digital download? They are 12-14 year old kids! They are not (or should not be) your target customers.

Kids have grown up sharing images, music, and text with one another on the internet so there really isn't any way to stop them from snagging a low resolution image from a web page, watermarked or not. They don't care about the "usability" of the image anyway. Next week or next month they will have something different on their facebook page and your image will likely be totally forgotten. Kids are fickle like that.

Fighting the internet and people's tendency to share images with one another seems like a painfully fruitless effort. Turn these habits into tools to promote yourself. That, or sue the little bastards!!!

Anyone ever made a watermark that says "this picture is stolen"??

I'm pretty sure you're joking but, that would be a pretty amazing mark of professionalism. At least people would remember (and talk about) your site!

jmphotocraft

James H wrote:

Really? You're surprised that 12-14 year old kids would want to share watermarked photos of themselves with their friends, on their facebook pages, without consulting copyright laws, and without whipping out their credit cards and paying for a digital download? They are 12-14 year old kids! They are not (or should not be) your target customers.

That's.... not at all what I said. I'm not surprised they are doing it, I'm surprised they consider the image useable with the giant watermark right in the middle.

I'm not really interested in fighting them, actually I'm sort of happy for the "free" publicity and name recognition. But I know that for most of them, this will be the only use they have for the images.

I'm pretty sure you're joking but, that would be a pretty amazing mark of professionalism. At least people would remember (and talk about) your site!

Yes, I was being facetious.

Out of this experience, however, I had an idea - I think in the "Downloads" tab of our image storefronts, there should be a "facebook" size option, which is 600 x 400 pixels, that we could sell for like a dollar (price of an iTunes song). The 1mp image size is too big to sell for a dollar, because it can be printed quite nicely at 4x6".

At any rate, this is just yet another example of why pre-sales are paramount, and why the existing pro smugmug business model is weak. Once they get coupons/vouchers and packages going, it will be a lot better.

Angelo

free advertising / publicity would be more effective if one knew where to find the images...

I'm just saying

.

jmphotocraft

Angelo wrote:

free advertising / publicity would be more effective if one knew where to find the images...

I'm just saying

.

If the kids know how to facebook, they know how to google "jmphotocraft". Or just guess - jmphotocraft.com.

James H

jmphotocraft wrote:

That's.... not at all what I said. I'm not surprised they are doing it, I'm surprised they consider the image useable with the giant watermark right in the middle.

I'm not really interested in fighting them, actually I'm sort of happy for the "free" publicity and name recognition. But I know that for most of them, this will be the only use they have for the images.

Okay, fair enough. I read more into what you wrote than what was there. Probably because I had just come from reading another thread where photographers were whining about all sorts of crazy things, like how to confront someone for posting one of their wedding photos on myspace (oh the horror!) It all just sounded so incredibly petty to me.

Now, as far as the obtrusive watermark goes, I think it's a double edged sword. Yes, a big bold watermark may keep some from lifting and using an image (obviously not kids) but what else does it do? Personally I find images with such watermarks too distracting to even look at the photos. I'm sure some parents may look right through it and decide to buy, but I'm willing to bet that many are just as turned off by the watermark as I am. A lot of customers may not understand the idea of the watermark is theft protection and instead think the photographer has some identity issues. And in some cases they'd be right. Regardless, I think one has to balance the "protection" with customer experience.

jmphotocraft wrote:

Out of this experience, however, I had an idea - I think in the "Downloads" tab of our image storefronts, there should be a "facebook" size option, which is 600 x 400 pixels, that we could sell for like a dollar (price of an iTunes song). The 1mp image size is too big to sell for a dollar, because it can be printed quite nicely at 4x6".

Sounds like a good idea. Sadly, I'm not convinced it would make a bit of difference to the folks who are going to screen-grab a copy anyway. Many people just don't assign value to a screen resolution photo. Yeah, they like to have them and share them online, but few are willing to go through the process of paying for something they see as pretty insignificant. A different (better?) approach for facebook is for the photographer to post their own copies, in their own facebook page and let people tag themselves in those photos. No sale there, but at least the photographer gets exposure on their terms and every photo is linked back to the photographer's own page. It can be used as a marketing tool.

jmphotocraft wrote:

At any rate, this is just yet another example of why pre-sales are paramount, and why the existing pro smugmug business model is weak. Once they get coupons/vouchers and packages going, it will be a lot better.

No argument there. Coupons and packages should make things much easier for photographers and clients.

pmbpro

James H wrote:

A different (better?) approach for facebook is for the photographer to post their own copies, in their own facebook page and let people tag themselves in those photos. No sale there, but at least the photographer gets exposure on their terms and every photo is linked back to the photographer's own page. It can be used as a marketing tool.

This is exactly what happened with me. I just shot events around town to share with friends. Many of those pics aren't even on my site! I put them, watermarked with my name and web address, on Facebook. Suddenly I had my friends/contacts tagging themselves after I post them...whether it was a live band they were in, an open mic jam, poetry reading, parade, bodybuilding/fitness or sport competition, etc., it didn't matter. I then realized how much exposure I was getting. I was receiving emails/messages of photo purchasing and photoshoot inquiries though Facebook! I was only intending on sharing the event with friends as part of my hobby, not drum up business. Turns out the business part, with paying customers, came along unexpectedly. People I'd met at the events also hit me up on Facebook. I've gotten referrals, and comments on my Guestbook. I'd say about half of my contacts have my pics in their Facebook profiles, many times over in one way or another.

I landed a photoshoot with an award-winning singer when she contacted me through Facebook. I became an affiliated photographer for a fitness/bodybuilding organization. Many of those competitors/athletes are on my Facebook list and use my pics in their profiles (all of them asked me first without me even prompting them).

It really does work...networking through Facebook. Same thing with MySpace.

Paula

Angelo

jmphotocraft wrote:

If the kids know how to facebook, they know how to google "jmphotocraft". Or just guess - jmphotocraft.com.

but you're not concerned with the kids who are stealing the images. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who see your images? Make it easy on them - maybe you'll get lots more hits at your site?


.

Art Scott

This is why my water has changed from PROOF PRROF PROOF in large bold colors to my web address....and will change again in near future to bear my name and email also..........one actuall make a very nice advetizment in a 200 x 1600 pixel png image...........:D

jmphotocraft

Wow Paula, that's great. I think I will try to make that work for me too!

Yeah, I'll add ".com" to my watermark when I get a chance.

mercphoto

jmphotocraft wrote:

Anyone ever made a watermark that says "this picture is stolen"??

I never have but I like the idea a lot. This whole attitude that this is the way kids operate these days is a BS argument. Sorry. But there is no excuse for theft.

James H

pmbpro wrote:

This is exactly what happened with me.
Snip...

I landed a photoshoot with an award-winning singer when she contacted me through Facebook. I became an affiliated photographer for a fitness/bodybuilding organization. Many of those competitors/athletes are on my Facebook list and use my pics in their profiles (all of them asked me first without me even prompting them).

It really does work...networking through Facebook. Same thing with MySpace.

Paula

Congrats Paula! I've had several friends experience the same thing, some accidentally and some through deliberate attempts to market themselves. The internet as a whole is great for promotion but the real power appears to be in utilizing the social aspect of sites like facebook and peoples desire to share images with their friends and family. (note I did not say kids desire, adults appear to do it just as much, if not more)

Some will embrace the online sharing and make it work for them. Others will fight it, call it theft, and see it as a threat to their livelihood. C'est la vie.

Nice collection of concert pics, btw! I'll have to come back later to look trough the BB images.

mercphoto

James H wrote:

Some will embrace the online sharing and make it work for them. Others will fight it, call it theft, and see it as a threat to their livelihood. C'est la vie.

Please explain this to me. If I take a photograph at an MX race, a particular photo of a particular rider only has value to that particular rider. So if I don't sell that photo to that person I won't sell it to anyone. If they steal that image I get nothing. You gotta ask yourself, will that "promotion" honestly prompt others to buy, or just to steal their images as well?

Its called theft because it is theft. It really is that simple. And this has no bearing on my livelihood, I don't make a living from photography. But I do have a respect for copyright law and ownership that sadly too many in America today do not. That's sad.

squiddy

I have done a lot of stuff for BMX riders that can barely afford to enter a contest so my right click message is "THEIF!!!! - just kidding, please contact for usage rights"

Most of them ask permission and the ones that don't will put my website or name in the caption on facebook/myspace or tag me. I sometimes unprotect them on purpose so the kids that can't afford them can show them around and get my name out there. I've had sales from the galleries so i feel it's a fair trade for exposure. After all word of mouth seems to be the best advertising.

James H

mercphoto wrote:

Please explain this to me. If I take a photograph at an MX race, a particular photo of a particular rider only has value to that particular rider. So if I don't sell that photo to that person I won't sell it to anyone.

Well, that could be true for your situation, I don't know your work. It would depend on whether or not the image had any artistic or editorial value and if you decided to pursue either of those uses for monetary gain. Of course, with a release, the image may also have value for commercial use. So I guess it would depend on your intended market for that image.

mercphoto wrote:

If they steal that image I get nothing.

If they don't pay you for that image then you get no money. If they copy that image to their website/facebook/forum post, then you get a lot of eyeballs seeing your image. A lot of eyeballs that never would have seen it otherwise, and those eyeballs will, most likely, already be interested in the type of photography that you do, or at least the sport you've photographed. Now, if that image has your contact information on it, you have just put a nice shiny business card in front of a whole lot of potential clients that you wouldn't have otherwise.

mercphoto wrote:

You gotta ask yourself, will that "promotion" honestly prompt others to buy, or just to steal their images as well?

I guess that depends on who you're catering to and what your images mean to those individuals. If you have one person copying images unpaid and posting them on forums or facebook then I suspect that you'll have a few more doing the same. But you have to ask yourself, are those few people ever likely to BUY an image from you? Probably not. In that case let them advertise for you.

mercphoto wrote:

Its called theft because it is theft. It really is that simple. And this has no bearing on my livelihood, I don't make a living from photography. But I do have a respect for copyright law and ownership that sadly too many in America today do not. That's sad.

Actually, no, it's not theft. It is a copyright violation. They have not taken your image from you, you still have it. They have displayed it without your permission. But I don't care to debate the definition of theft and copyright, there are dictionaries for that.

My point, in both the line you quoted and my previous comments, was that people are going to share images online. Some will do so without permission of the photographer. Some photographers realize this and have begun to utilize both the system and peoples habits to their advantage. Other photographers have taken a hard stance against it and may suffer because they can't really stop it. Keep in mind that those photographers who have embraced the idea are happy for the exposure and are likely seeing real sales because of it. Those photographers who haven't are left scratching their heads about how to police where their images appear online. Sounds a lot like the music industry, huh?

Lastly... Don't get me wrong, I value and respect copyright. I use it and I watermark my images. I don't condone using other people's work without their permission. And it is sad that many in the general population don't understand or disregard copyright. But, what I find most saddening is that photographers and videographers are sometimes the worst hypocrites when it comes to copyright. How many slide shows and videos have been made, publicly displayed, and sold by wedding photographers, using a piece of music they didn't have permission to use? How many motorcycle or auto photographers regularly utilize Harley Davidson or BMWs copyrighted logos and graphics to spice up their work? How many nature/documentary photographers regularly incorporate other people's copyrighted text in their photo captions or blogs? Answer is, a lot do it. And those same folks are usually very vocal when they see one of their images displayed without their permission.

ps - It's also sad that many Americans don't have respect for traffic laws and refuse to obey speed limits, stop signs, or right-of-way.

jmphotocraft

Yeah, it's theft, just like giving someone a mix CD (formerly mix tape) is also theft. It will never stop, there's no way to prevent it, and people consider it perfectly normal and innocent.

If my small "stolen" images display my contact info, I'm ok with it.

James - you've obviously never driven in any other country.

James H

jmphotocraft wrote:

Yeah, it's theft, just like giving someone a mix CD (formerly mix tape) is also theft. It will never stop, there's no way to prevent it, and people consider it perfectly normal and innocent.

Precisely. Well, almost. Accurate legal definitions aside, that's exactly how many people feel about displaying other's copyrighted photographs online. It doesn't make it legally right, but it is what it is.

jmphotocraft wrote:

If my small "stolen" images display my contact info, I'm ok with it.

I think I understand what you're saying here, but my idea was not to convince anyone to just be ok with it. Rather, I suggested that they acknowledge it happens and find a way to use it to their advantage, instead of solely trying to police it.

jmphotocraft wrote:

James - you've obviously never driven in any other country.

Do Atlanta, Houston, or New York City count? That's some crazy driving right there!
I hope you were being facetious again, because I was trying to make a (tongue-in-cheek) point with that line. Traffic laws are laws, yet the vast majority of us violate them to varying degree on a regular basis and think nothing of it. At least until someone else violates one and it has a direct impact on us. I used "Americans" in that line only because mercphoto said, "too many in America today do not." [have a respect for copyright law]

[rhetorical question] Is it justifiable to respect/obey some laws and not others, based on what may or may not be legal in some other country/location, or even on what may be the "norm" for your own location? [/rhetorical question]

In closing, I am on your side here. Seriously. I'm a photographer too, not professional, so I don't depend on image sales for my livelihood. Still, I don't like it either when people copy my images to their own site without permission and/or acknowledgment. But, I also think it's good to play devil's advocate sometimes.

jmphotocraft

James H wrote:

I think I understand what you're saying here, but my idea was not to convince anyone to just be ok with it. Rather, I suggested that they acknowledge it happens and find a way to use it to their advantage, instead of solely trying to police it.

Agreed.

I hope you were being facetious again,

Not really. It bugs the hell out of me when people make broad sweeping generalizations about poor behavior by lazy/careless/stupid/etc people, and then attribute it to just "Americans". Such general negative traits of human nature know no political borders.

And by the way, driving in Europe is very much like driving on a race track - I've done both.

I used "Americans" in that line only because mercphoto said, "too many in America today do not." [have a respect for copyright law]

Fair enough. Shame on mercphoto then! ;-)

James H

jmphotocraft wrote:

It bugs the hell out of me when people make broad sweeping generalizations about poor behavior by lazy/careless/stupid/etc people, and then attribute it to just "Americans". Such general negative traits of human nature know no political borders.

Full agreement here!

jmphotocraft wrote:

Fair enough. Shame on mercphoto then! ;-)

Well, in his defense, he did say, "too many in America" and not Americans. I incorrectly assumed nationality based on location. So, shame on me...:uhoh

mercphoto

I guess some background is in order here. Back in 2005 I did an experiment. I shot two motocrosses and two kart races in a single month. In all four galleries I did not watermark the images. My sales dropped by 90%. You read that right. Gallery hits actually went up a bit. The following month I watermarked my images and sales went right back where they belong.

That tells me that "exposure" doesn't pay the bills.