Watermarks and people who help themselves to my images. I’ve never been a fan of either, but the former is required (in my opinion) to help fight against the latter.
I use watermarks on images I post online in order to:
I also only make lower resolution images publicly available to help prevent them being usable for anything other than online viewing.
As with any visible method of protection, there are downsides to some watermarks:
The last point is why I’ve tried to use subtle watermarks because I personally find most to be too distracting and end up competing with the actual image itself for the viewer’s attention.
Recently, a speaker at a not-for-profit conference took it upon themselves to download a number of my images (which were all flagged as all rights reserved) from Flickr and incorporate them into their presentation without asking me beforehand. I only found out through another source and took exception.
Had the speaker contacted me before their presentation and sought permission or if they’d used them via Flickr then there wouldn’t have been a problem. One of the reasons why I took the photographs was to share them with others and Flickr is my chosen vehicle to do this. I don’t rule out other mediums, but I want to have the option of deciding which. They are my images, after all. What right does anybody else have in saying how they’re used?
From my perspective, they took my images, used them without my permission and expected I’d never find out. They were wrong, in every way, and apologised profusely when I contacted them, but still gave no explanation as to why they didn’t seek my permission first. It’s plain and simple theft.
What the speaker didn’t appreciate was the consequence of being caught out. Sure, they get to carry on as they please and hopefully their conscience will prevent them from stealing other people’s work in the future, but what happened affected me and caused me to reconsider how I share my work. It had to.
So, maybe I watermark more heavily and reduce the resolution of the images I publish. Will this prevent any more instances of theft? I hope so. Will it detract from the viewing experience? I can’t see how it can’t, but what choice do I have?
Copyright © 2010 by Liverpool Photographer | RSS | RSS Comments
adebond says:
05/12/2009 at 15:39
Interesting blog post Will. After Mark’s recent episode I too started adding a watermark to my images (I’d been posting them at a lower resolution for some time before then). But your issue got me thinking about how I approach the coyright to my images.
I have very little intention of making any money from my photography, although if I did that would be great. All I want is for as many people to see & enjoy the images I post as possible. That is why I’ve changed all the licensing on my Flickr images to a variation of Creative Commons. The terms are very specific that they are not to be used commercially & if they are modified they are to be licensed under the same terms.
You say that if the speaker had contacted you beforehand you would have granted permission anyway. If the images were licensed under Creative Commons then this would have been a non-issue. Is it something you’ve considered?
Will says:
05/12/2009 at 18:36
In this specific case, the use would have been non-commercial, but also importantly, it would have been used for a purpose which I approved of. Money implications aside, I still want to have a say in how my images are used in case someone wanted to use them for a purpose which I didn’t support.
Wouldn’t you want to have a say as to how your images are used? What if some loony extremist group wanted to use your images?
Chris Birchall says:
05/12/2009 at 18:55
A thorny issue, Will. And certainly not a new one. What has changed recently is not only the ease in which our images can be copied (downloaded in one click) but the generalised opinion that it is quite alright to do so!
It is even more difficult trying to convince those who have paid you for a photograph that whilst they now own that particular print, the actual image still belongs to you. All they have really bought is the right to look at it!
This applies as much to the music industry as it does to photographers. And in some small way I can understand how my customers feel. When I buy a CD I can play it in my home or even in my office/workroom. But to play it in my studio or reception I need a performing Rights Society licence!
Rather than grapple with the intricacies of the 1988 Copyright Act, I now “do a deal” with my customers. They “model release” the images I take of them in exchange for me granting them the right to use them on their own web site or Facebook page etc.
My term stipulate non commercial use only and that my ©BeautyPhoto.com notice AND phone number remain visible.
This watermark is right at the bottom left of the image, so as not to interfere too much with the pictorial content.
This practise not only fosters a happier relationship with the customer, I think of it as a way of free advertising. In the case of Facebook it works very well. when someone shares my watermarked image of themselves, they are in fact endorsing my work and recommending my services to their friends. We pick up new customers every week via this route.
So I think what I am saying here, Will, is that maybe we should all look at the watermark as a positive thing.
Just my two-penneth!
Chris.
Will says:
06/12/2009 at 19:03
Chris, the model release arrangement you have with your clients sounds like a win-win for all.
I appreciate this instance of image theft isn’t the first and nor will it be the last, but it was committed by a party I’d had no prior dealings with. So, there was no opportunity to strike any deal nor even have a say in how the images were used.
As for watermarking (sigh), if I can strike a balance between subtlety and visibility I’ll be a happier bunny.