A US company once used one of my images without permission. Rather than complaining I sent them an invoice for US$3000 for commercial use of my image. They did ask why the high price and I explained if they'd asked it would have been much cheaper, but they didn't. They paid up!!!
A woman once used my image .. I just wish she asked mom for permission .. She was standing next to the water cooler . She hid the camera and sneaked away. Some other kid named Colin Wood took the heat for it, but some years later . Thank God ... I don't care about money I just wish I could prove it was me Just asking .. If you take a picture of me is your image or is it my image???
Get a podcast app to be notified when our new episodes are out, leave a review, and listen on the go! Thank you: (iphone) itunes.apple.com/us/app/podcasts/id525463029?mt=8 (android) play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuna.podcastaddict&hl=en
One thing this video made me curious about was your opinion(s) on people taking screenshots or right-click, save as for the intent of using as a wallpaper for phone or PC? New to the channel and have been binging this podcast playlist as well as some of your other playlists the for the past few days. Love the channel, I've learned a lot already and plan to buy SDP next week. Thanks for all the info!
I put a small unobtrusive water mark on any image I put online, not because I think it will get stolen but because i feel photography is an art and artists sign their work.
I use a technique and thought you guys would probably cover it by end of the video but ... not there. Just a bit of thought from my side - I stopped water marking my pictures quite some time ago because I felt there are atleast thousand photographs better than mine and didn't feel good to put my name stamp all over. Then recently I developed quite some skills and produced images of esp. iconic locations better than anyone I could find online. In such cases I put a subtle visible name stamp in the bottom (or where it doesn't hurt the eyes) AND... I put 10 - 20% opacity watermarks in atleast 3-5 places in the image (in and around main subject) which are well hidden and really hard to visually detect. I make sure they don't ruin a 5 sec glance at the image... but if commercially used it would be visible all over and things can be traced back if used on a larger scale. If someone uses it online on a blog, etc ... yeah.. go ahead.. I don't mind.
I have many friends in the Live Music Photography scene and they heavily Watermark every single photo for social media sites. Most of them don't make a living from this but are hoping to eventually.And now that i watched this, it makes me realize how much those watermarks catch my eye and almost distract me from the actual photo now. Great video, Thanks!
This topic always generates some discussion! I'm along the same lines - Portfolio - No watermark - Social media - small business name written in corner - Digital albums (I shoot motorsport) - big obnoxious watermark. I tried the latter without and people just saved and shared etc, sales went up markedly once i started watermarking.
Hi Tony (and Chelsea!), at 20:25 you say that watermarking could make your picture less appealing for an ethical business. But I guess when they would contact you, they being an ethical business, you could supply them with a HQ picture without a watermark after you negotiated a compensation? So in that sense, watermarking shouldn't be an issue for ethical businesses.
I watermark most of my images with a subtle credit in the bottom right corner. I usually ensure that the image is cropped in such a way as to make further cropping (to remove the watermark) ruin the composition of the image. I also add exif data (done in camera and Lightroom) and only upload low resolution images to social media so that large prints cannot be made. As a local, professional, wedding and portrait photographer I want to ensure that every time the image is shared that I am getting the credit and brand recognition that I am putting the image online for.
my photos always have 2 watermarks one that u can easily see and one hidden. I had photos stolen but one of them had 2 watermarks and I manage to get credit for it since the person who stole it only cropped out the one sticked out and I proved that he had stolen the pic from me due to the other watermark
Nature TTL had piece on their website saying that if you want to compress an image online , you need to reduce the dimensions of the image, rather than the resolution. I can't understand that, how does it work?
I've just recently got into photography with a DSLR. it's actually how I found you two because I was looking for videos on the rebel t6i. Anyhow I posted a pic to Facebook and one of my friends liked it so much that she wanted to print it and hang it in her house. She asked me if I'd sign it but it wasn't at all a good quality picture. I really didn't want my name on it. I told her to just go ahead and print it without. She used an app and put my name on herself. The app shrunk the file and the quality was even worse! lol and the signature looked awful. Love your videos!
Wanted to comment last night but was streaming: A photography professor of mine said she hides her watermark in the photo. She's become very talented at sticking it in a crack somewhere almost undetectable and thereby thwarting someone from saying it is theirs or totally stipping the phtogrpaher's ID. I forget exactly what you said that prompted me to send you this but it is relevant to a question you raised and I believe asked for comments.
You guys are GrGrGrGreat! Always worth sitting through an hour episode. So much valuable information. Ok, watermarking is done for me for the most part, but I think I will share photos sizes at no larger than 1000p and rely on Facebook's aggressive compression to protect my work. They can always go to my site if they want to see a better, bigger version. Thanks.
Hi guys thank you for all your hard work and keep it up that said please fight that theft because it is exactly that theft and it is definitely wrong and you shouldn't let it slide.
Just watched this and I’m glad I did. I started thinking about watermarking and I was confused as to if I should or not. I’m just starting out so my work isn’t the greatest. However I’m glad you mentioned about the anti viral photos.I’ve taken some of my kiddos that I don’t want shared so thank you for the reassurance of why I felt I should watermark those. Love your videos : )
@11:56 what is up with the synchronized sleeve rolling.. im guessing with the matching outfit and all that its a joke from Chelsea... next up Tony in a dress getting tipsy
i watermark depending on the medium... when sharing on insta & FB as its easier for people to take (without communication) i add my logo (at roughly 33% opaque so its not a focal-point) my portfolio would never have watermarks as it my site... i feel sites that strip metadata is totally wrong! who the heck do they think they are... facebook does it too; on ANY/EVERY image... & its ruthless! aaaanyway... cheers! love the show & the info
In Poland most of the photogs are watermarking their images, however I think that this depends on the cultural context too. Also, I am doing a lot of aviation photography. To be honest, I always watermark my images for SM - I once had my newsworthy pics of an An-225 stolen, and I found out onlyy because my friend found the shot somewhere. Obviously, no credit there. I feel that even if I borrow a pic, crediting the photog is the least that you could do. Even if it is for non-commercial purpose. It just feels nice. I work as a journalist and my chief editor has made me adopt a rule - always, ALWAYS ask for permission to use.
Way to change my outlook on watermarking. I have marked all of my uploads since I started pretending I could take photos, now I see the other side think I'll start to reevaluate that. Thanks for the insight
Whats your view on watermarking music/gig photography? Dunno why I just feel after watching this that I will stop watermarking but I don't wanna stop watermarking my music photos - whats your view on this? Thanks :)
Really good point at 8:24. It's like how people go to certain blogs for their curation of images, not necessarily to see all of one particular artist's work. So I'm sure a person behind a blog like that would feel like they deserve the credit to some extent. Wow. Crazy they stole your photo then were that stubborn. Good podcast =)
I do not recall where I saw this a few years ago but it was a digital watermark that is embedded in the actual picture. It takes your original picture and changed certain pixels throughout the image in some way and it makes it impossible to remove the watermark and yet visually the picture looks the same.
You guys are so nice, i would actually eat the person who use my pictures for commercial purposes without paying me. My new watermark is going to be SO BOLD & BIG from now on.
I’ve seen that ring light phone case in shops here is Australia. I thought it was a bit weird seeing your photo on the box. I was thinking you uploaded the image to a stock site and case manufacturers got it from there. Guess not :(
When you spend a lot of time with another person then you start saying and doing similar things. I had spent some time with a photographer friend out in the field and after a while we started saying the same things at the same time. It was a funny experience.
Good timing on this episode as I just had an image stolen yesterday. I had posted it on a large local Facebook group and got contacted by the group owner that my image was reposted on the same group by another member. He was told to delete it. Since I'm just a hobby photographer it doesn't really matter but it did irk me. I used to watermark my images but found that people just cropped my name out. My new solution is if I'm posting on a more public facing group, I make a large text watermark in Photoshop. Bevel/emboss, change the fill to zero then turn down the opacity of the text, so it's only slightly visible and place right over the subject. Not sure if this is a good idea, or pointless. :)
+Tony & Chelsea Northrup There are also a number of ways to use steganography to mark your photos for copyright purposes/proof of origin. These methods aren't well known like EXIF is so it is less likely to be removed or stripped out. Of course it doesn't discourage theft in the way a visible watermark can. Oh, and Firefox for life! :P
Thing one: The situation that I ran into where watermarking or the equivalent was very necessary was of the "proof" type in the case of "event" pictures. In my case, my daughter participated in equestrian sports. There's usually a pro photographer standing out in the arena where he or she can get shots of some key points (like over a big jump.) A week later you get small proofs of the shots with big, ugly copyright stamps on them. That seems fair. The photographer is protecting his business. Thing two: I could be wrong, but I THINK putting your copyright info into the EXIF at least shows intent to claim the work as your own, which might be important in an Intellectual Property suit. Maybe there's an IP attorney out there who has a more educated opinion. As always, great stuff!
People that share professional images are wanting all the accolades instead of it going to the photographer. My own cousin did this very thing to me on Facebook. She downloaded an image I shot and uploaded it to her Facebook. The photo was of a Robin perched in our Dogwood tree in the front yard. I saw my photo float to the top of the feed because it was getting a bunch of likes and comments about how beautiful the photo was. They didn't say "beautiful Robin!" They didn't say "Beautiful Dogwood tree" they said "Beautiful photo!" My cousin who downloaded my image and posted it said "Thank you!" to all the comments and never once mentioned me. LOL it's pretty bad when your own cousin wants all the accolades for your photo. That's why they do it, they want all the likes. My Dad and I call it the "Look what I found" syndrome.
In case anyone cares, watermarking of paper is the selective washing away of some of the sizing, which is a kind of filler or glazing incorporated into paper during manufacture to give it a proper texture for writing or printing with, you guessed it, water. This leaves a permanent feature n the paper itself which cannot be washed away later. It's more like Digimarking, which is embedded invisibly in the image itself, rather than conspicuously on top of the image.
No Tony, I will not chill! Had enough time to chill the last few weeks with all these snow and ice storms! Don't you dare tell me to chill! YOU HEAR ME!?
I think Tony's programming ability with this extremely lifelike robot Chelsea should be taken note of. Here he has gone and built a robot partner and she looks ABSOLUTELY real. This is impressive. Her vocal inflection and subtle facial expressions are truly stunning. How many builds has she gone through? Anyone know?
Your anti-right click code does not work in Chrome for the Mac. The contextmenu pops up after "OK" is pressed. Also, if memory serves me correctly, to get around the alert on Windows all I have to do is hold the right click and press spacebar to get rid of the alert and then release the right click button. A better way to disable the right click menu is to listen for the "contextmenu" event on the body tag and return false. Or if you wanted to be clever, you could have your own right click menu popup with options for buying the image on various stockimage services.
Many documents with a tinted background have a "security watermark" that is only visible when copied or faxed. Prescriptions, business checks, titles and other documents.
Although I get the _intention_ behind right-click disable for websites, I strong, STRONGLY disapprove of its use. I find it to be more displeasing than a simple watermark. Whenever I run into a site that doesn't let me right-click, it feels like I'm on an old site from the 90's that has auto-playing midi music - "I've lost control of my own browser because the website owner has control issues." Sometimes I want to copy text while I'm reading, if it's hard to read on their website. Sometimes I want to inspect element to see how they did some of their background CSS. Sometimes I want to see if the filename of that photo matches what it's listed as on the website. When that ability is taken away from me, it feels like the website owner is assuming I'm up to no good. It just feels insulting. It's like going to one of those stores that has motion sensor cameras in high-theft areas where a buzzer will go off each time you pass it. It's assuming the worst of people by default. I don't like it at all, and I really dislike how many websites use it.
My friend is a prominent vegan speaker and author, and a MEAT company stole a photo of her snuggling with a cow and used it on their website to show the "happy lives" of animals. Insanity! I also had a photo that I didn't watermark go so viral it was on news stations around the world, on The Ellen Show, etc. It was an peeled orange in a plastic container at whole foods. Super frustrating-you can't understand how that feels until you experience it yourself. But this video was fascinating, it's comforting to know it likely wouldn't have gone viral had I watermarked it!
Do Painters "watermark" their paintings? I think it is important for me to watermark my photographs to show that I am the artist of a given photograph.
I've had both pictures and videos stolen. I have always reached out to the people who shared or took the intellectual property and gave them three options: pay, take it down, or I'd file a suit on them. They've never chosen the third option so far. What I usually do is I watermark my images that are shared on Facebook, where I know people are more prone to steal other's people pictures, to deter them from doing it. I don't watermark on Instagram (it's such a low quality that I don't care, plus the accounts who repost always tag and notify who the author is), nor on Flickr, and of course not on my website.
Oooh! I'm the exception to the rule I guess! I went viral 4 times and every time I stipulated to all the media outlets that they were required to use a watermarked image, and link to my website! Some media outlets even paid me!
I know im late on this topic but here goes. Im newer to photography and feel that if I do use a watermark that it will spread word faster to help get my name out there more for now. sort of what Chelsea mentioned at the end of the video. used as free publicity locally. but eventually i would like to not use watermarks on any photos.
Not only I am photographer I am also a artist. I put a small signature of my name in the lower right corner like how I do with all my drawings. I also take a spot (usually a black area) and go 3 shades lighter (most eyes can not notice the difference) causing a gray blur if they try to print it.
I am a novice photographer and was thinking of putting a huge watermark basically half inch width right from left to right and another one from top to bottom. I wanted my photos to be never stolen. Thanks i watched this video.
I've had to go to the extreme of just publishing my watermarks -- no photos -- and with them a notice saying to contact me if you want to see the actual image. :)
I just got a tasteful watermark made bc I want to sign my work and also bc I have a very common name. I don't know if it is incredibly naïve to do it with work not being sold, but it makes me proud of my work and I have the original if it would ever be sold - I would have it printed "plain" for someone. If I ever end up doing it as a business, then I'd have to rethink putting watermarks on the photos on my page if people were going to buy directly from the site.
How about using the Metadata feature and embid contact info? Does that data transfer on sites META sites? So funny growing up in the age of Napster, to be so protective of my work. Thanks for posting!
I had someone use one of my photos to promote their friend's business on Instagram. The person who lifted it was a full time photographer, I chalked it up as a learning experience. If a pro needs to use my work as their own, I must be doing something right.
For the Nikons I have you don't need to wait to add copyright info in Lightroom if you already added that info directly into the photos metadata using the camera's SETUP MENU option.
I have a well-known blogger acquaintance who wanted me to do some work for them (without compensation or credit) when I mentioned I would watermark in that case, they turned 180 and made it seem like I was trying ride off of their backs.. controversial/grey areas are hard. I normally don't watermark.
Good video, I've been wondering about watermarking recently. Question though, when do you think you should copyright your photos? I googled it and kind of got a vague answer, so I was wondering what you guys think?
Pawn Shops need Squarespace ... Many pawn shops have discovered the online classified jewelry section, and need photographers. Most photos are near marco, but because the image is such a small pixel size a digital zoom is possible. The Shops already have props to hold rings, watches, necklaces, etc. They lack lighting and variety of surface textures to contrast jewelry textures against. A creative photographer could even use a piece of paper, (or pieces of cloth) to set the subject on and a laptop to back-light the subject; using a graphic program on the screen to paint the black and white, or other color reflections onto the subject. Note: Tony & Chelsea have photo books with information on macro photography.
I remember Trey Ratcliffe likening most photo thieves to the kid who steals a few slurpee cups at 7/11. It is annoying but is actually a very small cost of doing business. Big companies who do it are a different matter and worth pursuing of course. So he also advises not using watermarks. I post almost nothing online but when I do, I have always followed his advice (and now yours too). He's not doing seniors portraits etc though - I think your advice to only send proofs that are heavily watermarked is essential in such cases.
I had work used for a book without permission. I knew the person but they never credited me for the image of them. I let it go because they weren't to savvy in these matters however the publisher should've asked her if it was cool. But I did inform her in case she published something else with someone's work and not credit or compensate. So she won't end up in a legal situation. Great info in the video. The rolling of the sleeves was cool. You two are inseparable.
I found a better bit of code for disabling right clicks. It only blocks it when your hovering over a image. And no dialog box is displayed when you do. Below is the code: function nocontext(e) { var clickedTag = (e==null) ? event.srcElement.tagName : e.target.tagName; if (clickedTag == "IMG") return false; } document.oncontextmenu = nocontext;
@Chris Hay. None of these bits of code prevent right-clicking that part of any page not containing an image, which then reveals an 'Inspect' menu option. Anybody with a little enterprise could identify an image, display it in another tab, then save it from that new location. View source [Ctrl + U] is another option...
I purchased prints from a photographer for our family photos and he watermarked the prints. I was ticked off. And he didn't want to reprint them without the water mark. I felt ripped off. Now I have to look at his watermark every time I walk past the family photo :(
There can be a flip side to that I have a photo of my great grandmother I didn't know from where or when with a watermark I was able to google that and find the photographer was in Chicago and only at that address for 2 years so I now know where it was taken and that the approximate age she was when it was taken. Back then every photo was either marked on the photo or on the paper backing or paper frame, in many of the photos it is too faded or the paper framing is torn etc. We don't often think about what may happen to our photos 2-3 generations from now when our descendents or even historians, depending on the subject matter, are looking at them.
Yeah, that is bad. He should have told you beforehand that he was going to leave the watermark. I would never do that to a client. Word of mouth is everything for portrait shooters.
You never mentioned Digimarc. DIgimarc has been available as a Photoshop plug-in since at least CS2, and the Digimarc viewer has been incorporated into PS equally as long, so if you use PS, and bother to look, you can immediately tell if any image on your desktop is Digimarced or not so *you* can avoid a copyright problem - if you happen to care about such things. I don't know about Lightroom. The Digimarcs themselves are not visible, but they do permanently alter the file in way that cannot be removed. They may not deter theft or misuse because most people will not be aware that they are there, but they will positively establish copyright ownership if necessary.
I opine: on one website there was a cartoon which if copied or scanned, when the taker tried to put it up, it went into pieces, unfortunately I did not discover how to apply it, but perhaps having an image simply fade to nothing or erase itself would be cool. As an artist, and selling cards and prints, it would be good to know blocking code.
25:30 you're supposed to put script tags in the footer. Any script in the 'HEAD' tag blocks the DOM from loading until it has been executed. Also, that is some prehistoric code which doesn't even account for mobile touch events. I just tested this on my S8, and I could long-press any photo on your website and open the context menu to download it. You know more than half of web traffic comes from mobile devices. It's pointless anyway because it ruins the user experience having these horrible, unfriendly messages pop up tell you "Don't touch my photos!". If someone really wants to download it they'll hit F12 on their desktop browser and select the photo, then view it in the sources panel, or they'll just screenshot it on their phone. Or like you said, the lazy business will come across your photos in google images and not even know where they came from. Having people share your photos is a good thing and you should encourage people to do it - so long as you have your t&c on your website any business who tries to monetise it would have to compensate you. The only way you can successfully monetise from ordinary people sharing your photos is by having your own unique, creative style like Murad Osman, Brandon Woelfel or Natsumi Hayashi.
If you look at photography groups in Facebook pages % 70 have watermarks on their photos. Dose not matter if they are top pro photographers to hobbyists. It's just not about crediting the photographer, or stealing, it's about getting a name of who you are and what you do in the world of photography. and getting work as well. Nothing wrong with that. If people don't like their loss. No right or wrong. ..!!!
I also download both of your photos from social accounts and put it as a laptop wallpaper...but i never take credits, i always praise it and address you both in it.
I've been temporarily using the Date and Time stamp for my signature until I came up with a name and logo that stands out. Now it's a matter of getting it applied to my photos.
about 1/2 through the video and after the ring light story, I'm sure it was yourselves perhaps or Jared Polin that talked about some "artist" making slight changes to other people's photos and selling prints of them recently. I believe he said he felt he was right because the changes were "transformative" although i think they were very minor changes. If someone is using your images, especially in a commercial way without permission, I think you are obviously well within your rights to take action against them regardless of whoever you are, professional or not.
Me being an enthusiast, I posted some pics on a hobby site about how to fix something. The site actually used my pics to illustrate a point. I didn't know they were there for months. I just happened to cruise the Help site and lo and behold there's my pics. Me, having a "real job", wasn't concerned about loss of income, but I was flattered. So that's how I got paid. Now, that's what has killed photo-journalism. People are happy to have something posted(maybe even something they stole) and that boosts their little ego. WM's; why so big? If you recognise your pic being used WOP, you certainly can find your own tiny WM. It doesn't have to be big enough to deter astronauts from stealing them.
📚 Buy Our Books on Amazon! 📚
📕Stunning Digital Photography: help.tc/s
📘Lightroom 6 Book: help.tc/l
📙Photoshop Book: help.tc/p
📗Buying Guide: help.tc/b
A US company once used one of my images without permission. Rather than complaining I sent them an invoice for US$3000 for commercial use of my image. They did ask why the high price and I explained if they'd asked it would have been much cheaper, but they didn't. They paid up!!!
Wow, that's awesome, Carl! You're my hero.
Carl Downing
Like a boss
great!
A woman once used my image .. I just wish she asked mom for permission .. She was standing next to the water cooler . She hid the camera and sneaked away. Some other kid named Colin Wood took the heat for it, but some years later . Thank God ... I don't care about money I just wish I could prove it was me Just asking .. If you take a picture of me is your image or is it my image???
"Good lookin and easy." 😍😍
I'm glad you caught that because Tony sure didn't.
He absolutely did not! I was watching his face for a reaction and it went right over his head. :)
Tony ain't got time for double entendres.
one of your best lines ever
Get a podcast app to be notified when our new episodes are out, leave a review, and listen on the go! Thank you:
(iphone) itunes.apple.com/us/app/podcasts/id525463029?mt=8
(android) play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuna.podcastaddict&hl=en
One thing this video made me curious about was your opinion(s) on people taking screenshots or right-click, save as for the intent of using as a wallpaper for phone or PC?
New to the channel and have been binging this podcast playlist as well as some of your other playlists the for the past few days. Love the channel, I've learned a lot already and plan to buy SDP next week. Thanks for all the info!
I put a small unobtrusive water mark on any image I put online, not because I think it will get stolen but because i feel photography is an art and artists sign their work.
I love you guys. You work so well together. I am always learning from you and I really appreciate the effort you put in. Thanks.
Pauline Follett we appreciate all of your supportive comments, Pauline :)
Hey I like Jack Northrups photography! That guys watermarks are legit! 😂
I use a technique and thought you guys would probably cover it by end of the video but ... not there.
Just a bit of thought from my side - I stopped water marking my pictures quite some time ago because I felt there are atleast thousand photographs better than mine and didn't feel good to put my name stamp all over.
Then recently I developed quite some skills and produced images of esp. iconic locations better than anyone I could find online. In such cases I put a subtle visible name stamp in the bottom (or where it doesn't hurt the eyes)
AND... I put 10 - 20% opacity watermarks in atleast 3-5 places in the image (in and around main subject) which are well hidden and really hard to visually detect. I make sure they don't ruin a 5 sec glance at the image... but if commercially used it would be visible all over and things can be traced back if used on a larger scale. If someone uses it online on a blog, etc ... yeah.. go ahead.. I don't mind.
Synchronized marital sleeve rolling.....so cute.
Enjoyable and informative video.
Thank you Chelsea and Tony for this TH-cam on watermarks. It helped me alot.
I have many friends in the Live Music Photography scene and they heavily Watermark every single photo for social media sites. Most of them don't make a living from this but are hoping to eventually.And now that i watched this, it makes me realize how much those watermarks catch my eye and almost distract me from the actual photo now. Great video, Thanks!
This topic always generates some discussion!
I'm along the same lines
- Portfolio - No watermark
- Social media - small business name written in corner
- Digital albums (I shoot motorsport) - big obnoxious watermark.
I tried the latter without and people just saved and shared etc, sales went up markedly once i started watermarking.
Hi Tony and Chelsea, Please make a video about macro lenses vs. macro tube rings adapters and which one do you recommend, I thank you in advance.
Hi Tony (and Chelsea!),
at 20:25 you say that watermarking could make your picture less appealing for an ethical business. But I guess when they would contact you, they being an ethical business, you could supply them with a HQ picture without a watermark after you negotiated a compensation? So in that sense, watermarking shouldn't be an issue for ethical businesses.
I want my pictures to be used illegally, I need the cash.
canturgan omg I'm cracking up 😂
I watermark most of my images with a subtle credit in the bottom right corner. I usually ensure that the image is cropped in such a way as to make further cropping (to remove the watermark) ruin the composition of the image. I also add exif data (done in camera and Lightroom) and only upload low resolution images to social media so that large prints cannot be made. As a local, professional, wedding and portrait photographer I want to ensure that every time the image is shared that I am getting the credit and brand recognition that I am putting the image online for.
This was an extremely useful video. They are all good but this one was a gold mine.
my photos always have 2 watermarks one that u can easily see and one hidden. I had photos stolen but one of them had 2 watermarks and I manage to get credit for it since the person who stole it only cropped out the one sticked out and I proved that he had stolen the pic from me due to the other watermark
Well, they may steal my photos but they can never steal those moments I enjoyed, taking them!
What are your thoughts of a signature watermark? like signing your artwork?
I go the low-res route. It seems to be the best compromise IMO.
Nature TTL had piece on their website saying that if you want to compress an image online , you need to reduce the dimensions of the image, rather than the resolution. I can't understand that, how does it work?
I found this to be a lot more interesting than I initially thought! Thanks a bunch!
I've just recently got into photography with a DSLR. it's actually how I found you two because I was looking for videos on the rebel t6i. Anyhow I posted a pic to Facebook and one of my friends liked it so much that she wanted to print it and hang it in her house. She asked me if I'd sign it but it wasn't at all a good quality picture. I really didn't want my name on it. I told her to just go ahead and print it without. She used an app and put my name on herself. The app shrunk the file and the quality was even worse! lol and the signature looked awful.
Love your videos!
Wanted to comment last night but was streaming: A photography professor of mine said she hides her watermark in the photo. She's become very talented at sticking it in a crack somewhere almost undetectable and thereby thwarting someone from saying it is theirs or totally stipping the phtogrpaher's ID. I forget exactly what you said that prompted me to send you this but it is relevant to a question you raised and I believe asked for comments.
Yup I known a few people who do this. Put a watermark with it blended heavily into the background. Opacity is your friend lol
I have always been struggling with this. You guys made it much clearer. Thank you.
You guys are GrGrGrGreat! Always worth sitting through an hour episode. So much valuable information. Ok, watermarking is done for me for the most part, but I think I will share photos sizes at no larger than 1000p and rely on Facebook's aggressive compression to protect my work. They can always go to my site if they want to see a better, bigger version. Thanks.
Hi guys thank you for all your hard work and keep it up that said please fight that theft because it is exactly that theft and it is definitely wrong and you shouldn't let it slide.
I was just thinking of watermarks today, I will definitely follow your podcast.
Just watched this and I’m glad I did. I started thinking about watermarking and I was confused as to if I should or not. I’m just starting out so my work isn’t the greatest. However I’m glad you mentioned about the anti viral photos.I’ve taken some of my kiddos that I don’t want shared so thank you for the reassurance of why I felt I should watermark those. Love your videos : )
@11:56 what is up with the synchronized sleeve rolling.. im guessing with the matching outfit and all that its a joke from Chelsea... next up Tony in a dress getting tipsy
:D haha, I started doing it subconsciously and then realized we were weird and stopped.
I can't believe how closely people analyse your videos! Great podcast as usual.
I was wondering if it was subconscious or evil mockery! Ha Ha!
I don't use a podcast app.. but I'll thumps up this video.
What about digimarc? I've used it for years.
i watermark depending on the medium...
when sharing on insta & FB as its easier for people to take (without communication) i add my logo (at roughly 33% opaque so its not a focal-point)
my portfolio would never have watermarks as it my site...
i feel sites that strip metadata is totally wrong! who the heck do they think they are...
facebook does it too; on ANY/EVERY image... & its ruthless!
aaaanyway...
cheers! love the show & the info
The way both of oyu have collars like mirrored gave me OCD attack.
haha, ah! That's creepy.
Omg I hate you so much for pointing that out lol
laszu Hahaha that was funny
AHHH Can't unsee now!!! My OCD notices the spelling "oyu"! lol
I was about to email them about it. Thanks for pointing that out
Love this series
In Poland most of the photogs are watermarking their images, however I think that this depends on the cultural context too. Also, I am doing a lot of aviation photography. To be honest, I always watermark my images for SM - I once had my newsworthy pics of an An-225 stolen, and I found out onlyy because my friend found the shot somewhere. Obviously, no credit there. I feel that even if I borrow a pic, crediting the photog is the least that you could do. Even if it is for non-commercial purpose. It just feels nice. I work as a journalist and my chief editor has made me adopt a rule - always, ALWAYS ask for permission to use.
You don't have to have extension to reverse image search. Just go to google image search and drag a photo there.
Way to change my outlook on watermarking. I have marked all of my uploads since I started pretending I could take photos, now I see the other side think I'll start to reevaluate that. Thanks for the insight
You guys are so funny! I love it.
Whats your view on watermarking music/gig photography? Dunno why I just feel after watching this that I will stop watermarking but I don't wanna stop watermarking my music photos - whats your view on this? Thanks :)
Really good point at 8:24. It's like how people go to certain blogs for their curation of images, not necessarily to see all of one particular artist's work. So I'm sure a person behind a blog like that would feel like they deserve the credit to some extent. Wow. Crazy they stole your photo then were that stubborn. Good podcast =)
I do not recall where I saw this a few years ago but it was a digital watermark that is embedded in the actual picture. It takes your original picture and changed certain pixels throughout the image in some way and it makes it impossible to remove the watermark and yet visually the picture looks the same.
You guys are so nice, i would actually eat the person who use my pictures for commercial purposes without paying me. My new watermark is going to be SO BOLD & BIG from now on.
I’ve seen that ring light phone case in shops here is Australia. I thought it was a bit weird seeing your photo on the box. I was thinking you uploaded the image to a stock site and case manufacturers got it from there. Guess not :(
what is the deal with rolling up your sleeves together?
A family that rolls together stays together.
I haven't laughed so hard in my life
If you don't keep doing it now, people will start speculating that there are marital problems :p
When you spend a lot of time with another person then you start saying and doing similar things. I had spent some time with a photographer friend out in the field and after a while we started saying the same things at the same time. It was a funny experience.
Good timing on this episode as I just had an image stolen yesterday. I had posted it on a large local Facebook group and got contacted by the group owner that my image was reposted on the same group by another member. He was told to delete it. Since I'm just a hobby photographer it doesn't really matter but it did irk me. I used to watermark my images but found that people just cropped my name out. My new solution is if I'm posting on a more public facing group, I make a large text watermark in Photoshop. Bevel/emboss, change the fill to zero then turn down the opacity of the text, so it's only slightly visible and place right over the subject.
Not sure if this is a good idea, or pointless. :)
+Tony & Chelsea Northrup There are also a number of ways to use steganography to mark your photos for copyright purposes/proof of origin. These methods aren't well known like EXIF is so it is less likely to be removed or stripped out. Of course it doesn't discourage theft in the way a visible watermark can.
Oh, and Firefox for life! :P
Thing one: The situation that I ran into where watermarking or the equivalent was very necessary was of the "proof" type in the case of "event" pictures. In my case, my daughter participated in equestrian sports. There's usually a pro photographer standing out in the arena where he or she can get shots of some key points (like over a big jump.) A week later you get small proofs of the shots with big, ugly copyright stamps on them. That seems fair. The photographer is protecting his business.
Thing two: I could be wrong, but I THINK putting your copyright info into the EXIF at least shows intent to claim the work as your own, which might be important in an Intellectual Property suit. Maybe there's an IP attorney out there who has a more educated opinion.
As always, great stuff!
People that share professional images are wanting all the accolades instead of it going to the photographer. My own cousin did this very thing to me on Facebook. She downloaded an image I shot and uploaded it to her Facebook. The photo was of a Robin perched in our Dogwood tree in the front yard. I saw my photo float to the top of the feed because it was getting a bunch of likes and comments about how beautiful the photo was. They didn't say "beautiful Robin!" They didn't say "Beautiful Dogwood tree" they said "Beautiful photo!" My cousin who downloaded my image and posted it said "Thank you!" to all the comments and never once mentioned me. LOL it's pretty bad when your own cousin wants all the accolades for your photo. That's why they do it, they want all the likes.
My Dad and I call it the "Look what I found" syndrome.
In case anyone cares, watermarking of paper is the selective washing away of some of the sizing, which is a kind of filler or glazing incorporated into paper during manufacture to give it a proper texture for writing or printing with, you guessed it, water. This leaves a permanent feature n the paper itself which cannot be washed away later. It's more like Digimarking, which is embedded invisibly in the image itself, rather than conspicuously on top of the image.
LMFAO... Good looking and easy!! I love you Chelsea!!!!
Why did they both roll up their sleeves at about the 12:00 mark? Signal? To whom?
No Tony, I will not chill! Had enough time to chill the last few weeks with all these snow and ice storms! Don't you dare tell me to chill! YOU HEAR ME!?
I think Tony's programming ability with this extremely lifelike robot Chelsea should be taken note of. Here he has gone and built a robot partner and she looks ABSOLUTELY real. This is impressive. Her vocal inflection and subtle facial expressions are truly stunning. How many builds has she gone through? Anyone know?
Your anti-right click code does not work in Chrome for the Mac. The contextmenu pops up after "OK" is pressed. Also, if memory serves me correctly, to get around the alert on Windows all I have to do is hold the right click and press spacebar to get rid of the alert and then release the right click button. A better way to disable the right click menu is to listen for the "contextmenu" event on the body tag and return false. Or if you wanted to be clever, you could have your own right click menu popup with options for buying the image on various stockimage services.
Many documents with a tinted background have a "security watermark" that is only visible when copied or faxed. Prescriptions, business checks, titles and other documents.
Thank you both for all the information.
I do watermark my photos but do so to get my brand out there.
Although I get the _intention_ behind right-click disable for websites, I strong, STRONGLY disapprove of its use. I find it to be more displeasing than a simple watermark.
Whenever I run into a site that doesn't let me right-click, it feels like I'm on an old site from the 90's that has auto-playing midi music - "I've lost control of my own browser because the website owner has control issues." Sometimes I want to copy text while I'm reading, if it's hard to read on their website. Sometimes I want to inspect element to see how they did some of their background CSS. Sometimes I want to see if the filename of that photo matches what it's listed as on the website. When that ability is taken away from me, it feels like the website owner is assuming I'm up to no good. It just feels insulting. It's like going to one of those stores that has motion sensor cameras in high-theft areas where a buzzer will go off each time you pass it. It's assuming the worst of people by default. I don't like it at all, and I really dislike how many websites use it.
My friend is a prominent vegan speaker and author, and a MEAT company stole a photo of her snuggling with a cow and used it on their website to show the "happy lives" of animals. Insanity!
I also had a photo that I didn't watermark go so viral it was on news stations around the world, on The Ellen Show, etc. It was an peeled orange in a plastic container at whole foods. Super frustrating-you can't understand how that feels until you experience it yourself. But this video was fascinating, it's comforting to know it likely wouldn't have gone viral had I watermarked it!
The first one sounds so bad..
Tony, you and your Videos are great: simply and really good content 👍 thanks!
Do Painters "watermark" their paintings? I think it is important for me to watermark my photographs to show that I am the artist of a given photograph.
I've had both pictures and videos stolen. I have always reached out to the people who shared or took the intellectual property and gave them three options: pay, take it down, or I'd file a suit on them. They've never chosen the third option so far.
What I usually do is I watermark my images that are shared on Facebook, where I know people are more prone to steal other's people pictures, to deter them from doing it. I don't watermark on Instagram (it's such a low quality that I don't care, plus the accounts who repost always tag and notify who the author is), nor on Flickr, and of course not on my website.
Oooh! I'm the exception to the rule I guess! I went viral 4 times and every time I stipulated to all the media outlets that they were required to use a watermarked image, and link to my website! Some media outlets even paid me!
I know im late on this topic but here goes. Im newer to photography and feel that if I do use a watermark that it will spread word faster to help get my name out there more for now. sort of what Chelsea mentioned at the end of the video. used as free publicity locally. but eventually i would like to not use watermarks on any photos.
Lmao, you just summed me up in the first 5 minutes! Re-thinking my watermark use. Thank you!
Not only I am photographer I am also a artist. I put a small signature of my name in the lower right corner like how I do with all my drawings. I also take a spot (usually a black area) and go 3 shades lighter (most eyes can not notice the difference) causing a gray blur if they try to print it.
I am a novice photographer and was thinking of putting a huge watermark basically half inch width right from left to right and another one from top to bottom. I wanted my photos to be never stolen. Thanks i watched this video.
I've had to go to the extreme of just publishing my watermarks -- no photos -- and with them a notice saying to contact me if you want to see the actual image. :)
I just got a tasteful watermark made bc I want to sign my work and also bc I have a very common name. I don't know if it is incredibly naïve to do it with work not being sold, but it makes me proud of my work and I have the original if it would ever be sold - I would have it printed "plain" for someone. If I ever end up doing it as a business, then I'd have to rethink putting watermarks on the photos on my page if people were going to buy directly from the site.
How about using the Metadata feature and embid contact info? Does that data transfer on sites META sites? So funny growing up in the age of Napster, to be so protective of my work.
Thanks for posting!
I had someone use one of my photos to promote their friend's business on Instagram. The person who lifted it was a full time photographer, I chalked it up as a learning experience. If a pro needs to use my work as their own, I must be doing something right.
For the Nikons I have you don't need to wait to add copyright info in Lightroom if you already added that info directly into the photos metadata using the camera's SETUP MENU option.
I look it as the same a paintings, it is traditional to at least initial paintings.
Michael Shainblum watermarks his pictures ;) He's pretty famous and successful :)
What do you guys think of the copyright sign © on watermarks ?
I have a well-known blogger acquaintance who wanted me to do some work for them (without compensation or credit) when I mentioned I would watermark in that case, they turned 180 and made it seem like I was trying ride off of their backs.. controversial/grey areas are hard. I normally don't watermark.
Good video, I've been wondering about watermarking recently.
Question though,
when do you think you should copyright your photos?
I googled it and kind of got a vague answer, so I was wondering what you guys think?
In the US, and most countries, pictures are automatically copyrighted when you take them. You don't have to do anything to copyright your photos.
Pawn Shops need Squarespace ... Many pawn shops have discovered the online classified jewelry section, and need photographers. Most photos are near marco, but because the image is such a small pixel size a digital zoom is possible.
The Shops already have props to hold rings, watches, necklaces, etc. They lack lighting and variety of surface textures to contrast jewelry textures against. A creative photographer could even use a piece of paper, (or pieces of cloth) to set the subject on and a laptop to back-light the subject; using a graphic program on the screen to paint the black and white, or other color reflections onto the subject.
Note: Tony & Chelsea have photo books with information on macro photography.
I remember Trey Ratcliffe likening most photo thieves to the kid who steals a few slurpee cups at 7/11. It is annoying but is actually a very small cost of doing business. Big companies who do it are a different matter and worth pursuing of course.
So he also advises not using watermarks. I post almost nothing online but when I do, I have always followed his advice (and now yours too).
He's not doing seniors portraits etc though - I think your advice to only send proofs that are heavily watermarked is essential in such cases.
I had work used for a book without permission. I knew the person but they never credited me for the image of them. I let it go because they weren't to savvy in these matters however the publisher should've asked her if it was cool. But I did inform her in case she published something else with someone's work and not credit or compensate. So she won't end up in a legal situation. Great info in the video. The rolling of the sleeves was cool. You two are inseparable.
Dam Carl, you gangsta lol. That was awesome!
Hi Tony & Chelsea, I read about cryptographic watermarks, can you say something about how far this got?
Just for the record, only the Australian you spoke to says P"ee"tapixel! ;)
you guys are so easy to relate to.
I found a better bit of code for disabling right clicks. It only blocks it when your hovering over a image. And no dialog box is displayed when you do. Below is the code:
function nocontext(e) {
var clickedTag = (e==null) ? event.srcElement.tagName : e.target.tagName;
if (clickedTag == "IMG")
return false;
}
document.oncontextmenu = nocontext;
This works much better than the pieces of scripts in the Squarespace help page. Those did not really work on all browsers somehow.
@Chris Hay. None of these bits of code prevent right-clicking that part of any page not containing an image, which then reveals an 'Inspect' menu option. Anybody with a little enterprise could identify an image, display it in another tab, then save it from that new location. View source [Ctrl + U] is another option...
Holding shift and then right clicking works too, much easier.
Or just screen shot it.
I purchased prints from a photographer for our family photos and he watermarked the prints. I was ticked off. And he didn't want to reprint them without the water mark. I felt ripped off. Now I have to look at his watermark every time I walk past the family photo :(
There can be a flip side to that I have a photo of my great grandmother I didn't know from where or when with a watermark I was able to google that and find the photographer was in Chicago and only at that address for 2 years so I now know where it was taken and that the approximate age she was when it was taken. Back then every photo was either marked on the photo or on the paper backing or paper frame, in many of the photos it is too faded or the paper framing is torn etc. We don't often think about what may happen to our photos 2-3 generations from now when our descendents or even historians, depending on the subject matter, are looking at them.
Yeah, that is bad. He should have told you beforehand that he was going to leave the watermark. I would never do that to a client. Word of mouth is everything for portrait shooters.
You never mentioned Digimarc. DIgimarc has been available as a Photoshop plug-in since at least CS2, and the Digimarc viewer has been incorporated into PS equally as long, so if you use PS, and bother to look, you can immediately tell if any image on your desktop is Digimarced or not so *you* can avoid a copyright problem - if you happen to care about such things. I don't know about Lightroom. The Digimarcs themselves are not visible, but they do permanently alter the file in way that cannot be removed. They may not deter theft or misuse because most people will not be aware that they are there, but they will positively establish copyright ownership if necessary.
I opine: on one website there was a cartoon which if copied or scanned, when the taker tried to put it up, it went into pieces, unfortunately I did not discover how to apply it, but perhaps having an image simply fade to nothing or erase itself would be cool. As an artist, and selling cards and prints, it would be good to know blocking code.
25:30 you're supposed to put script tags in the footer. Any script in the 'HEAD' tag blocks the DOM from loading until it has been executed. Also, that is some prehistoric code which doesn't even account for mobile touch events. I just tested this on my S8, and I could long-press any photo on your website and open the context menu to download it. You know more than half of web traffic comes from mobile devices. It's pointless anyway because it ruins the user experience having these horrible, unfriendly messages pop up tell you "Don't touch my photos!". If someone really wants to download it they'll hit F12 on their desktop browser and select the photo, then view it in the sources panel, or they'll just screenshot it on their phone. Or like you said, the lazy business will come across your photos in google images and not even know where they came from. Having people share your photos is a good thing and you should encourage people to do it - so long as you have your t&c on your website any business who tries to monetise it would have to compensate you. The only way you can successfully monetise from ordinary people sharing your photos is by having your own unique, creative style like Murad Osman, Brandon Woelfel or Natsumi Hayashi.
depends if you seeit and do it as a watermark or a signature
If you look at photography groups in Facebook pages % 70 have watermarks on their photos. Dose not matter if they are top pro photographers to hobbyists. It's just not about crediting the photographer, or stealing, it's about getting a name of who you are and what you do in the world of photography. and getting work as well. Nothing wrong with that. If people don't like their loss. No right or wrong. ..!!!
Chelsea is hilarious 😂 #goodlookinandeasy
and Tony's Silent cut off response is soo LOL. Cute couple
Katie Rose i think she had been drinking a bit lol
How bout dat, good lookin and easy!
I also download both of your photos from social accounts and put it as a laptop wallpaper...but i never take credits, i always praise it and address you both in it.
This was actually a pretty good one, good video.. :) different than what I thought it was gonna be like.
I've been temporarily using the Date and Time stamp for my signature until I came up with a name and logo that stands out. Now it's a matter of getting it applied to my photos.
about 1/2 through the video and after the ring light story, I'm sure it was yourselves perhaps or Jared Polin that talked about some "artist" making slight changes to other people's photos and selling prints of them recently. I believe he said he felt he was right because the changes were "transformative" although i think they were very minor changes. If someone is using your images, especially in a commercial way without permission, I think you are obviously well within your rights to take action against them regardless of whoever you are, professional or not.
Really enjoyed this. Great information.
Me being an enthusiast, I posted some pics on a hobby site about how to fix something. The site actually used my pics to illustrate a point. I didn't know they were there for months. I just happened to cruise the Help site and lo and behold there's my pics. Me, having a "real job", wasn't concerned about loss of income, but I was flattered. So that's how I got paid. Now, that's what has killed photo-journalism. People are happy to have something posted(maybe even something they stole) and that boosts their little ego. WM's; why so big? If you recognise your pic being used WOP, you certainly can find your own tiny WM. It doesn't have to be big enough to deter astronauts from stealing them.