Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by zorro, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. zorro

    zorro Guest

    Hello there,

    My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
    watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
    think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
    one's heard of her in the art world.

    We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
    really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
    images have no watermark.

    And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
    want to show.

    Any thoughts or advice about that?

    zorro, Feb 6, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. zorro

    Paul Furman Guest

    One reason to watermark is people will download, rename & pass the files
    around... eventually someone might want a bigger copy, or at least
    wonder who did it & where they can see more. My approach is to apply a
    very small watermark with the most subtle transparency I can get away
    with. Think of it like a signature on a painting, just a little thing
    down in the corner. The big ones are annoying and detract from
    appreciating the photo. If it's on a stock photo site, that's
    understandable but not if people are supposed to visit the gallery for
    pleasure. In that case, if it's the sort of image people might steal for
    commercial use on the web, I'd rather see a faint 'X' across the image
    than a big logo & copyright. Also, with a small watermark in the corner,
    people will just crop that out.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 6, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. They can also often be discreet, and even artistic!
    Why not post the URL and then you can get even more 'real' opinions!
    John McWilliams, Feb 6, 2009
  4. zorro

    OG Guest

    Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents
    direct downloading of images.

    On the other hand, some people don't like hanging around waiting for
    Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off.
    OG, Feb 6, 2009
  5. zorro

    Dave Guest

    The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a **** how
    much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the
    image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it 'free to everybody'.
    If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to
    mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it's yours
    but even more making it unusable.

    Dave, Feb 6, 2009
  6. zorro

    Dave Guest

    True - had to use a dictionary to confirm the meaning of the word
    (although it is obviously an auxiliary derived from pretend).
    Is it pretentious to reply to something in another language than your
    home language when not being100% sure of the meaning of a specific

    I am not a regular reader of this group (in fact 1st time here:)
    Only a passer-by.

    There is of course the possibility your answer impressed the rest of
    the contributors, but over here it only evoked a smile.

    Keep well

    Dave, Feb 7, 2009
  7. zorro

    tinnews Guest

    But it's trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that's pointless.
    Quite, flash is definitely a negative pointer as far as I'm concerned.
    tinnews, Feb 7, 2009
  8. zorro

    . Guest

    Though I have not sold a photo for publication I've wondered if
    potential publishers consider photos that have been shown on web pages
    as still being qualified as available as "first time published"
    photos. It seems that this may compromise a photos acceptance as not
    before published.

    ., Feb 7, 2009
  9. zorro

    tony cooper Guest

    It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
    links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
    watermark across the face.

    The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
    interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
    steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
    is the better word.

    A watermark that identifies the photographer is not pretentious. It
    is the size and placement that can make it pretentious.
    tony cooper, Feb 7, 2009
  10. zorro

    Voivod Guest

    It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
    Voivod, Feb 7, 2009
  11. zorro

    tony cooper Guest

    To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
    distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
    you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
    is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
    intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
    unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
    that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
    tony cooper, Feb 7, 2009
  12. zorro

    Dave Guest

    Dave, Feb 8, 2009
  13. zorro

    Voivod Guest

    If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence
    then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least
    of the problem.
    Voivod, Feb 8, 2009
  14. zorro

    Dave Guest

    so, the watermark cause the poster to have at least one fan.
    Dave, Feb 8, 2009
  15. zorro

    Voivod Guest

    Being your only fan is having no fans at all.
    Voivod, Feb 8, 2009
  16. zorro

    Dave Guest

    Yep, don't worry twit,
    It's done.
    You won't irritate me anymore
    Dave, Feb 8, 2009
  17. zorro

    Voivod Guest

    I'm sure it's what drug you out of the woodwork.
    Voivod, Feb 8, 2009
  18. zorro

    OG Guest

    right click | Save Picture As ...

    compared to

    Alt + Prt Scr, Win, All Programs, Accessories, Paint, click . . . . Ctrl+V,
    File | Save |*#*|<enter picture name> |tab| 'J' |tab| Save

    Not difficult; but not necessarily 'trivial' either.

    *#* represents a navigation to My Documents | My Pictures
    OG, Feb 9, 2009
  19. zorro

    Dave Guest

    Dave, Feb 9, 2009
  20. That's a big brave assertion from an anonymous coward. Get real. Our
    tony is not delusional in the least.
    John McWilliams, Feb 9, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.