circulation of own photos

Foxy xo

Hi there,

I had a hard time deciding where to post this thread, so if it is in the wrong section, my apologies!

I would just like opinions/thoughts on this matter.

Would you care if your photographs were in circulation on the internet with no real link back to your website, or would you just be happy that it is getting the attention?

Do you think it's imperative that I watermark my photographs? I generally only mark the bottom corners, and not the picture as a "whole".

I've seen a few photos of mine that are in circulation on blogs like Tumblr, and other photo libraries such as piccsy, and the majority of the time, there is no link to my site/blog or credit.

Should I be concerned?

I would take it much more serious if the photographs were works of art, but as it stands, they are pretty average photographs.

Thanks!

angevin1

Foxy xo wrote: »

Would you care if your photographs were in circulation on the internet with no real link back to your website, or would you just be happy that it is getting the attention?

Happy that my photograph is getting the attention sounds like it is a separate entity. My photographs are mine, and we're connected. So I would appreciate someone using a photo of mine saying that they got it from me with a link or at least a nod. I have photos that are free to use, found on all sorts of places without watermark. And under the creative commons label that I distribute them on they are required to give me credit for the original work. Then they can go and do whatever they want with them. I don't really get tore up about it as some folks do, and rarely use watermarks. but when I do, I place dead center right across the image with no mistake who's it is.

Also, at least here at SmugMug, you can upload small res files and then have a waiting period set so that you can upload a larger file when it sells...which IMO is brilliant.

deb22

If you are not selling photo's then don't sweat it too much. But it is always a good idea to only load low res online until you decide if selling is something you want to do. If you are already selling it could become a big deal and watermarking and low res are a pre- requisite!! Either way if it bugs you you can stop it, if it's only a minor problem let it stay that way. P.S. I have had many photo's stolen and even re-done and put in someone elses name. If it is on line you can never fully protect it except by making it useless to others by a large watermark or very low res. We all learn the hard way sometimes. Good luck .

TonyCooper

I think it depends on what you want to accomplish. If you are posting links to
your images just because you want to share with others and maybe get some
critique, an intrusive watermark spoils the image. What you're sharing is an
image that has a distracting element to it. If there was a distraction in the
image itself, you'd clone it out.

If you're sharing in order to create sales for your images, then it should be
watermarked in such a way that it can't easily be picked up and used by
someone else.

Demian

Yeah, I wouldn't care about it if I wasn't trying to profit off it. If they aren't photo aficionados (and the vast majority of them won't be) they won't have the slightest care in the world about your copyright notice ("copyrighted by Ansel Adams? Who the hell is that?") If our photos propagate on Tumblr or whatever, it means it's actually reaching people... something rather difficult to accomplish. I'd be proud that my work was making people happy, and meaning something to somebody other than myself.

That said, make sure you add a copyright notice to your exif info. Most people won't see it, but on the odd chance someone wants to use your photo for commercial or media purposes they'll be able to contact you.