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.

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.

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?

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?