I had a situation where a well known band from the 80’s stole images on mine and used them to link to their merchandise. I had the copyright watermark on them, and they were registered. They cropped it out and put crappy filters on them. Posted them all over FB, IF, and Twitter. They A. Didn’t tag me. B. Didn’t credit me either. When I asked to at least credit me, I was ghosted. So I hired a lawyer to have them taken down. It took them over three months. And literally cursing out profanities to said lawyer on the phone and in emails. My lawyer told me to keep the copyright on images when posting online because a judge is going to want to see that you put measures in place on top of registering the images. Luckily it didn’t get that far. I’ve been banned from their concerts(ooo wow) and they still have crappy images on their IG and FB never crediting photographers while adding filters to their work. SMH
This is pretty close to the examples people brought up in the comments as to why they were using watermarks. But as you have illustrated. A commercial entiity removed your watermark and commercially exploited your registered images. And what was the result? Were you financially compensated? If you weren't, I dont really get the point of watermarking and registering.
They cropped out the watermark in some but in others they couldn’t. My lawyer and I both agreed that I wasn’t going to get a dime, because when we presented how much it would’ve been, they literally bitched and complained. They eventually removed my work, and said that they were trying to help young photographer. That is utter BS, my images were the best that they had at the time and they felt that they could use them. The lawyer was a friend and hardly charged anything. She felt the same as me. Should I have been compensated? Simple answer is yes. However they got the point that they shouldn’t mess with artists. Hate me all you want with this, but I was satisfied. And for me that was enough. Now, had this been something bigger, heck yes I would’ve demanded more.
As long as you shoot RAW, and keep the RAW images, you have proof of copyright. There is no legal requirement or precedent that requires the copyright holder to take steps to prevent unlicensed image use. If you want to do something, always include copyright info in the exif data. Yes, they can remove the exif data, but this is no different than removing your watermark, And, the uneducated thief may be entirely unaware of the exif data whereas the watermark is obvious.
I mostly agree but my usual response applies here as well - it depends. In my case, my watermark is to identify me or it is a combo watermark to identify the fashion show and a particular photographer, in this case, me. My watermark is always off to the side and doesn't stand out. Once you realize what it is you can spot it but if not, you'll probably not even notice it. It has nothing to do with protecting the image from theft, it is all to do with identifying a photographer amount many without taking away from the model, designers, or produces while at the same time, throw some branding in there. With that said, most, watermarks are just obnoxious.
I totally agree, small faint watermarks are just what I do, that light logo in the corner to just have it, but not noticed right away is what it should be. Sure there are cases to not do that, like I never send payed work to the client with watermarks. As far as sharing the content for the photos you are working on. Exactly. Don't miss represent your brand.
You know Trey Ratcliff said the same thing in a photo walk years ago. Watermarks don't stop folks from using your image either, which I've had. My work isn't recognizable yet, but I'm slowly moving in this direction.
This is entirely a personal thing 100% Nothing wrong with it and I personally don’t like watermarks on my work but my reasoning is far different than yours. Thus the title of this video is misleading - implies don’t do it because [I] this and [I] that Absolutely nothing wrong with [your] reasons but that’s not everyone else’s situation. And yes, you can do something about it - register work (important) work with the Library of Congress. It absolutely helped with my case against NBC for using my watermarked work during the Olympics. Again, this is VERY narrow and specific to you and your work - does not apply broadly, as implied by the title.
I think anyone could have a small portion of their work go viral and overshadow the rest of their work. Or someone could decide for business reasons that they want to pivot to a different genre of photography and that old work could come up too frequently in search engine results with their logo all over it. For instance most people I have encountered who hire commercial photographers don't think much of wedding photographers and a bunch opf photos on bridal blogs isn't going to go over very well.
I agree with you, however I am a creature of habit, I still watermark my pictures, the only difference is the A’s the years go by the watermark gets smaller and smaller, to the point where it is almost a challenge to actually see it.
Great video as always, John. Similar but different story - when I got started I photographed a musician friend and sent him hundreds of unedited JPEGs. Fast forward a couple of years and he was still posting these and tagging me, all while adding his own Instagram filters! Needless to say they did not at all represent my brand or the work I was starting to get recognized for, so I finally I sent him a message and told him to either stop sharing them or just don't tag me lol and to come in for a new session. He still posts one occasionally...
Thanks Pete. That can be frustrating for sure. Something like this is the reason why I have Instagram set up so I have to approve all tags before they go on my tags tab.
I agree. More in reference to the quality of the work than what that work is for me. Though another big reason for me to stop using watermarks was the workflow. To prevent the issues of them being cropped out I would place the watermark to the point of essentially hiding it in a unique spot on every single image. This just become too much with all the different crops often needed. It's just easier to not use them with the added benefit of not being haunted in the future.
Brilliant, as always. I stopped using watermarks because they didn't stop the theft and all they really did was prevent repost pages from reposting, and get random strangers to tell me that my watermark meant I had some kind of ego that I thought (knew) people were stealing my images. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts and experiences on the theft. I'm by no means a rEaL pHoToGrApHeR, just a hairdresser documenting my work, so when I whine about this on social media I get either crickets, people telling me I'm over-reacting, or I hear that (the huge common misconception) "once you post it online it belongs to everyone." If I search for hair inspiration pics I regularly find my own pictures posted on blogs and articles without credit and CERTAINLY without permission or compensation, and it drove me so crazy for so long that I've essentially (almost) given up caring. I still hold on to a hope that more creators will speak up about this and maybe shift public opinion, shift policy, shift something to make sure that my work builds my brand, not other random brands. There are countless places online and a few in print (one time even a billboard and one time a show on MTV!) who have profited off of my images, and I've gotten ZERO for the time and money I put into creating said images.
Oh well that sounds quite distressing. I have had my work licensed for TV shows but I have also had it printed in a newspaper without payment, and after a threatening email I was compensated. The biggest infringer of my work that I have noticed are bar fliers. But the source of that was the models posting the images without watermarks or being contacted and giving the files away for exposure. I can't think of an instance where an infringer cropped off my watermark but a lot of people have mentioned that in the comments. Right now my images are being used by a company to sell some photo gear on amazon, but that DMCA process is pretty much a dead end on that one, as it is typically when dealing with someone outside of the reach of US or EU law. In the past there were other times that I found my images on websites with my watermark but those sites were based in Asia too and there was no recourse. My general philosophy now is that I am going to get paid either monetarily or in self improvement while taking that images and any usage fees are a bonus. There are just too many ways our work can be exploited to keep track of it over time.
thanks john, thats a nice angle. I have recently stopped using watermarks as well as, as time goes by my work is changing - and it doesnt make any sense to hold on to one particular image, which can make you get satisfied rather than moving on and just creating more and more. with time you get recognized. e.g. some of us can know your work from a distance.
Good point. Also, for me at least, the “learning from mistakes” approach in some of your videos helps in remembering the techniques or whatever else the point is that you’re trying to make.
Aww dang.. I swore I commented.. but I think watermarks are a good thing. Maybe put the Yr on it too so that it helps to gauge new work from older work. I’ve had my work stolen many a time and it’s annoying to see others use it to book clients or have it stolen for use in web ads.
Hi John, while you are talking about watermarks here I think the broader issue here is that “online” is not some private space where content of any kind can’t found one way or the other which your future self might not be so happy for it to be found 20 years later .
My broader point was we are all going to make mistakes or wish to change directions and watermarks are just going to make it harder to pivot in the future. Many people are just using them to prevent thefts, thinking that these unauthorized uses are major, when most of the time those violations are only worth 50-cents each.
Watermarks don't work because 90% of the time a 15 year old with a bootleg copy of Photoshop can remove it in 5 minutes, or just crop it out in seconds. The only thing a watermark does, IF you registered a copyright for that image and someone removes the watermark, is bolster your argument the unauthorized use was 'willful'. The people that do that stuff generally have no money to sue for though. If by chance a business violates your copyright, but they are outside the US...Ask Tony Northrup how that goes.
so true ... so many (amateur)photographers are riding the "bare skin wave" to get attention ... but who do they get attention from ? mostly naughty males that are more interested in bare skin than your work. You also can see this effect on websites like modelmayhem ... Naked skin often is more important than photographic quality. that might be ok, if your business is targeting cheap porn magazines and websites, but scares away potential serious business partners for fashion and advertising. btw. I learned this lesson as well as I am, as far as that goes, also guilty as charged, for doing the same sh*t before I started to do photography as a business. never the less, watermarking can be essential sometimes, specially with all that copyright infringements that are going on especially on social media.
Thanks for your comment Karsten. It gives me comfort to hear that someone else took the same path. Last week people were arguing with me that I was wrong and when I went to their instagram, I saw female body builders half dressed as 1950's pinup models.
@@JohnGress and the Most disturbing about these profiles: They all look the same - same lighting - same angles - same poses - same LR filters Hell, even the models and Location are often the same ones
Maybe more so because you may decided to pivot to a different genre of photography and the internet could be flooded with images with your logo on them that don't help you build that new business. For instance sexy girls and cars wont book you many weddings and wedding images may cause an art director to think less of you when they're looking for an advertising photographer.
In your case you wanted to shoot naked people and then decided to get corporate and regretted it. When people are sharing your images (the ones you are actually not embarrassed about) constantly without credit, you might think differently. Not the giant name across the middle but something so people or companies can find you. THE CHANCE of someone just miraculously finding your site out of the blue is slim. Chances are they will see your work shared on social sites and if there is no credit given, they can't find you.
This video is ultimately a cautionary tail about brand management. As I said in the video, I was always working with corporate clients and I was never embarrassed. On the end I wanted the work people saw to be the work that I ultimately wanted to do for a living. I don’t think it’s rare for Photographer to decide to Pivot and take their work in different direction. Everything from weddings to real estate to bodybuilder pinup shots could have a negative affect on the brand image you are trying to portray to make a living. A person who shoots fashion shows is not likely to land a big fashion advertising gig. People repost my images all of the time without credit and even use it to advertise products. I don’t think someone randomly stumbling across an image on a Pinterest board or an amazon listing is going to lead to meaningful work. What matters is that you convert the potential customer that is looking to hire a photographer at that moment. Potentially searching for your name or researching you after finding you through a search.
I had a situation where a well known band from the 80’s stole images on mine and used them to link to their merchandise. I had the copyright watermark on them, and they were registered. They cropped it out and put crappy filters on them. Posted them all over FB, IF, and Twitter. They A. Didn’t tag me. B. Didn’t credit me either. When I asked to at least credit me, I was ghosted. So I hired a lawyer to have them taken down. It took them over three months. And literally cursing out profanities to said lawyer on the phone and in emails. My lawyer told me to keep the copyright on images when posting online because a judge is going to want to see that you put measures in place on top of registering the images. Luckily it didn’t get that far. I’ve been banned from their concerts(ooo wow) and they still have crappy images on their IG and FB never crediting photographers while adding filters to their work. SMH
This is pretty close to the examples people brought up in the comments as to why they were using watermarks. But as you have illustrated. A commercial entiity removed your watermark and commercially exploited your registered images. And what was the result? Were you financially compensated? If you weren't, I dont really get the point of watermarking and registering.
I am curious....how much did the attorney cost you and how much did you recover as a result of your lawsuit?
They cropped out the watermark in some but in others they couldn’t. My lawyer and I both agreed that I wasn’t going to get a dime, because when we presented how much it would’ve been, they literally bitched and complained. They eventually removed my work, and said that they were trying to help young photographer. That is utter BS, my images were the best that they had at the time and they felt that they could use them. The lawyer was a friend and hardly charged anything. She felt the same as me. Should I have been compensated? Simple answer is yes. However they got the point that they shouldn’t mess with artists. Hate me all you want with this, but I was satisfied. And for me that was enough. Now, had this been something bigger, heck yes I would’ve demanded more.
As long as you shoot RAW, and keep the RAW images, you have proof of copyright. There is no legal requirement or precedent that requires the copyright holder to take steps to prevent unlicensed image use. If you want to do something, always include copyright info in the exif data. Yes, they can remove the exif data, but this is no different than removing your watermark, And, the uneducated thief may be entirely unaware of the exif data whereas the watermark is obvious.
I mostly agree but my usual response applies here as well - it depends. In my case, my watermark is to identify me or it is a combo watermark to identify the fashion show and a particular photographer, in this case, me. My watermark is always off to the side and doesn't stand out. Once you realize what it is you can spot it but if not, you'll probably not even notice it. It has nothing to do with protecting the image from theft, it is all to do with identifying a photographer amount many without taking away from the model, designers, or produces while at the same time, throw some branding in there. With that said, most, watermarks are just obnoxious.
I totally agree, small faint watermarks are just what I do, that light logo in the corner to just have it, but not noticed right away is what it should be.
Sure there are cases to not do that, like I never send payed work to the client with watermarks.
As far as sharing the content for the photos you are working on. Exactly. Don't miss represent your brand.
You know Trey Ratcliff said the same thing in a photo walk years ago. Watermarks don't stop folks from using your image either, which I've had. My work isn't recognizable yet, but I'm slowly moving in this direction.
This is entirely a personal thing 100%
Nothing wrong with it and I personally don’t like watermarks on my work but my reasoning is far different than yours. Thus the title of this video is misleading - implies don’t do it because [I] this and [I] that
Absolutely nothing wrong with [your] reasons but that’s not everyone else’s situation.
And yes, you can do something about it - register work (important) work with the Library of Congress.
It absolutely helped with my case against NBC for using my watermarked work during the Olympics.
Again, this is VERY narrow and specific to you and your work - does not apply broadly, as implied by the title.
I think anyone could have a small portion of their work go viral and overshadow the rest of their work. Or someone could decide for business reasons that they want to pivot to a different genre of photography and that old work could come up too frequently in search engine results with their logo all over it. For instance most people I have encountered who hire commercial photographers don't think much of wedding photographers and a bunch opf photos on bridal blogs isn't going to go over very well.
I would like to build a consistent, unique style that becomes my “watermark”. All in due time, I suppose.
That is always the goal and it will happen!
I agree with you, however I am a creature of habit, I still watermark my pictures, the only difference is the A’s the years go by the watermark gets smaller and smaller, to the point where it is almost a challenge to actually see it.
You're making me cringe thinking about how big mine was at the beginning of social!
Great video as always, John. Similar but different story - when I got started I photographed a musician friend and sent him hundreds of unedited JPEGs. Fast forward a couple of years and he was still posting these and tagging me, all while adding his own Instagram filters! Needless to say they did not at all represent my brand or the work I was starting to get recognized for, so I finally I sent him a message and told him to either stop sharing them or just don't tag me lol and to come in for a new session. He still posts one occasionally...
Thanks Pete. That can be frustrating for sure. Something like this is the reason why I have Instagram set up so I have to approve all tags before they go on my tags tab.
@@JohnGress good idea I think I will change that setting.
I agree. More in reference to the quality of the work than what that work is for me. Though another big reason for me to stop using watermarks was the workflow. To prevent the issues of them being cropped out I would place the watermark to the point of essentially hiding it in a unique spot on every single image. This just become too much with all the different crops often needed. It's just easier to not use them with the added benefit of not being haunted in the future.
Thanks David. We all deserve to work less and for those less than optimal works to be forgotten.
Brilliant, as always. I stopped using watermarks because they didn't stop the theft and all they really did was prevent repost pages from reposting, and get random strangers to tell me that my watermark meant I had some kind of ego that I thought (knew) people were stealing my images. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts and experiences on the theft. I'm by no means a rEaL pHoToGrApHeR, just a hairdresser documenting my work, so when I whine about this on social media I get either crickets, people telling me I'm over-reacting, or I hear that (the huge common misconception) "once you post it online it belongs to everyone." If I search for hair inspiration pics I regularly find my own pictures posted on blogs and articles without credit and CERTAINLY without permission or compensation, and it drove me so crazy for so long that I've essentially (almost) given up caring. I still hold on to a hope that more creators will speak up about this and maybe shift public opinion, shift policy, shift something to make sure that my work builds my brand, not other random brands. There are countless places online and a few in print (one time even a billboard and one time a show on MTV!) who have profited off of my images, and I've gotten ZERO for the time and money I put into creating said images.
Oh well that sounds quite distressing. I have had my work licensed for TV shows but I have also had it printed in a newspaper without payment, and after a threatening email I was compensated. The biggest infringer of my work that I have noticed are bar fliers. But the source of that was the models posting the images without watermarks or being contacted and giving the files away for exposure.
I can't think of an instance where an infringer cropped off my watermark but a lot of people have mentioned that in the comments. Right now my images are being used by a company to sell some photo gear on amazon, but that DMCA process is pretty much a dead end on that one, as it is typically when dealing with someone outside of the reach of US or EU law. In the past there were other times that I found my images on websites with my watermark but those sites were based in Asia too and there was no recourse.
My general philosophy now is that I am going to get paid either monetarily or in self improvement while taking that images and any usage fees are a bonus. There are just too many ways our work can be exploited to keep track of it over time.
thanks john, thats a nice angle. I have recently stopped using watermarks as well as, as time goes by my work is changing - and it doesnt make any sense to hold on to one particular image, which can make you get satisfied rather than moving on and just creating more and more. with time you get recognized. e.g. some of us can know your work from a distance.
Thanks! That is a great point too. Moving on as a big artist and evolving is a big part of the process.
Good point. Also, for me at least, the “learning from mistakes” approach in some of your videos helps in remembering the techniques or whatever else the point is that you’re trying to make.
Thanks Bob! I need to make a channel intro stressing that approach.
Aww dang.. I swore I commented.. but I think watermarks are a good thing. Maybe put the Yr on it too so that it helps to gauge new work from older work.
I’ve had my work stolen many a time and it’s annoying to see others use it to book clients or have it stolen for use in web ads.
Hi John, while you are talking about watermarks here I think the broader issue here is that “online” is not some private space where content of any kind can’t found one way or the other which your future self might not be so happy for it to be found 20 years later .
My broader point was we are all going to make mistakes or wish to change directions and watermarks are just going to make it harder to pivot in the future. Many people are just using them to prevent thefts, thinking that these unauthorized uses are major, when most of the time those violations are only worth 50-cents each.
Watermarks don't work because 90% of the time a 15 year old with a bootleg copy of Photoshop can remove it in 5 minutes, or just crop it out in seconds. The only thing a watermark does, IF you registered a copyright for that image and someone removes the watermark, is bolster your argument the unauthorized use was 'willful'. The people that do that stuff generally have no money to sue for though. If by chance a business violates your copyright, but they are outside the US...Ask Tony Northrup how that goes.
You done absolutely right, when i see one image that you've taken, i know it's yours... instantly! Great work as always.
Thank you so much Audrik!
ok, I'm convinced. Not using anymore watermarks for my content for now on!
I guess we could add to it that generative fill can make it disappear in 10 seconds.
Thanks for sharing this.
Thanks for listening =)
My fear is getting my photos stolen. would you be able recommend something that can stop that ?
I don think that there is much that is going to stop that. A bad actor is just going to crop out the watermark.
so true ...
so many (amateur)photographers are riding the "bare skin wave" to get attention ...
but who do they get attention from ?
mostly naughty males that are more interested in bare skin than your work.
You also can see this effect on websites like modelmayhem ...
Naked skin often is more important than photographic quality.
that might be ok, if your business is targeting cheap porn magazines and websites, but scares away potential serious business partners for fashion and advertising.
btw. I learned this lesson as well as I am, as far as that goes, also guilty as charged, for doing the same sh*t before I started to do photography as a business.
never the less, watermarking can be essential sometimes, specially with all that copyright infringements that are going on especially on social media.
Thanks for your comment Karsten. It gives me comfort to hear that someone else took the same path. Last week people were arguing with me that I was wrong and when I went to their instagram, I saw female body builders half dressed as 1950's pinup models.
@@JohnGress and the Most disturbing about these profiles:
They all look the same
- same lighting
- same angles
- same poses
- same LR filters
Hell, even the models and Location are often the same ones
HA!
@@JohnGress why are you laughing ? 🤔😁
Is this applicable to beginners as well?
Maybe more so because you may decided to pivot to a different genre of photography and the internet could be flooded with images with your logo on them that don't help you build that new business. For instance sexy girls and cars wont book you many weddings and wedding images may cause an art director to think less of you when they're looking for an advertising photographer.
So there's nothing you can do if someone uses your photo and makes money from it??
Watermarks are not going to stop someone from doing that. They can be removed with a crop, clone or ai.
@@JohnGress yeah, so there's nothing you can do to stop that now?
So true I couldn’t agree more I try telling someone recently about this and about me even going through this faze myself. and they said they “like”
I just hope it helps one person not make the mistakes I made.
In your case you wanted to shoot naked people and then decided to get corporate and regretted it. When people are sharing your images (the ones you are actually not embarrassed about) constantly without credit, you might think differently. Not the giant name across the middle but something so people or companies can find you. THE CHANCE of someone just miraculously finding your site out of the blue is slim. Chances are they will see your work shared on social sites and if there is no credit given, they can't find you.
This video is ultimately a cautionary tail about brand management. As I said in the video, I was always working with corporate clients and I was never embarrassed. On the end I wanted the work people saw to be the work that I ultimately wanted to do for a living. I don’t think it’s rare for Photographer to decide to Pivot and take their work in different direction. Everything from weddings to real estate to bodybuilder pinup shots could have a negative affect on the brand image you are trying to portray to make a living. A person who shoots fashion shows is not likely to land a big fashion advertising gig.
People repost my images all of the time without credit and even use it to advertise products. I don’t think someone randomly stumbling across an image on a Pinterest board or an amazon listing is going to lead to meaningful work. What matters is that you convert the potential customer that is looking to hire a photographer at that moment. Potentially searching for your name or researching you after finding you through a search.
Good advice as always :)
Thank you so much!