Selling Prints without Copyright

I'm new to selling my photos and have a few questions. Mostly I'm looking for advice on whether or not to watermark

the front of the image for portraits when someone pays a small sitting fee and then orders prints from the proofs. Do

you watermark the print with the company logo? Also if you do, what is the easiest way to do that with a group of

photos and what colors and size works the best? If not, how do you prevent illegal duplication of the image so that

they will continue to buy from you and not just copy the images? I just ordered a few prints and put a small

watermark on the lower left. In some images it completely blends in to the background even though I used two

contrasting colors for the text. Any advice with all of this would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Rick

who is likely to pass off your printed photos as their own? watermark in prints does not make sense. if the work is good the sitter would pay. if you are getting paid then why bother with the watermark?

Putting your name on a piece of art is an old tradition; painters, illustrators, print makers, and sculptors have been signing their work for centuries. Why should photographers behave differently? Are you not proud of your work? Don't you think the people who hire you to do their portraits are not also proud of their good taste in hiring you?

Yes you definitely need to protect your images with a watermark or the images may be stolen, especially if you

offer soft proofs. Set up an action in Photoshop and batch process all your images, or use a service like

Printroom.com to display (with watermark) and sell your images online.

I only watermark stuff that goes on the web.

i agree that like other artists we should sign are prints too, but it was a trend of the past i hear. i dont do it today unless the

prints are a gift/promo. i do textureize the surface of all prints to make any copies of them poor. also i put a copyright

sticker with contact info on the back. no one minds that.

I don't as a rule do that for prints that I sell. Most of the parents that I talk with are annoyed that the "Company" puts it's name in gold foil on the corner of their children's portraits.

 

Dave

I think we need to make a distinction between a watermark and a digital signature.

 

They are two very different animals, IMO.

 

I use (or will use) both and they serve quite different purposes.

 

I am going to be seriously watermarking any images going on the web and digital proofs on CD, etc. It's also

commonly done with proof prints and I might also consider that. This is to prevent image theft. It is

intentionally intrusive upon the image in an effort to prevent it's use or copying for the large part, short of

major work on it with Photoshop, well beyond the abilities of most people.

 

A watermark also serves as an "advertisement" when done right. Then, if people download images (and they will)

and pass them around or post them on Facebook, etc., everyone they share them with will see my name and URL.

 

On the other hand, practically every finished print I send out is "signed" digitally, not watermarked. In large

part this is simply because I take pride in my work. The type of prints where I do this include fine art and any

I might make on behalf of clients who will be displaying them in one way or another: portraits, weddings, etc. I

do not think singing your work is a thing of the past in any way and I've never had even had a hint of a

complaint from a customer about my signature.

 

Yes, a key reason professionals and studios sign their works is as to flag any services that make scans and

copies, that it's copyrighted material and the copyright is owned by someone other than the person asking for the

copy to be made. You don't need the © or the year or the word "copyright", just your name or your business

name. It can be unobtrusive and tasteful. An alternative is to put a notice on the back of the print. But, not

all print papers take ink well on the back and there's always a concern of it eventually bleeding through and

effecting the print. Stickers on the back might work, too, but again there is the risk that the glue in them will

eventually damage the print. Also, they can be removed if someone is determined enough to do so.

 

I was in a local camera store just this week when a lady brought in some prints to have scanned and copied. The

manager told her, "No, they are clearly marked Olin Mills (portrait studio) and we cannot make copies of them.

It's illegal for anyone to do so without Olin Mills express, written permission. There is a very hefty fine and

possibly a jail term for making copies like that, without permission." He didn't get into explaining copyright

law, but came pretty close. It was well handled. This is part of a very large chain of camera stores.

 

There are situations where customers want to have their own prints made. All those images still get my signature,

but I'll provide a license they can show to the printer, giving them a limited license to make prints for

personal display purposes, and expressly not for resale or any other transfer to a third party, or for any

commercial purpose.

 

The only exceptions to my signature/watermark are that I do not sign or watermark in any way an image that's

going to be used commercially or editorially, digital or printed (the later is becoming pretty rare). That's the

only case.

 

Until recently I tried to avoid watermarks. I really hate them. But, I think they are becoming a necessity. I

know of even some small size files that have been downloaded and used without my permission (and in most cases I

would have given it if they'd just asked). I particularly object to small images being enlarged and fiddled with,

and looking like crappola, which reflects on me.

 

By the way, be aware that just because someone doesn't sign or watermark their images, that doesn' t mean they

are not copyrighted. Ownership of copyright happens automatically the moment the photographer presses the

shutter button, unless they have agreed in writing that the copyright has been reassigned (such as to an

employer, if a staff photographer working on company time). There doesn't have to be any sort of mark on the

print (or digital image) for the copyright to remain in effect. Watermarking and signing simply helps discourage

infringement against the copyright, by making it more willful and obvious when it happens.

 

Oh, and if someone deliberately removes your signature or watermark from an image, or a sticker from the back or

EXIF metadata about the copyright status of the image, that's an additional $30,000 fine, per instance, if it can

be proven they did so.

 

Note too, there is some difference in copyright law from country to country. The above applies mainly to the

U.S., although a number of other countries may have quite similar provisions.

 

 

<i>Oh, and if someone deliberately removes your signature or watermark from an image, or a sticker from the back or EXIF metadata about the copyright status of the image, that's an additional $30,000 fine, per instance, if it can be proven they did so. </i><P>Under what law? Citation please.

On removing copyright notice check the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It makes removal evidence of intent now and adds to the penalties. Has been some time since I read it but a quick check should give you the information needed.

Alan wrote:

 

<< ... if someone deliberately removes your signature or watermark from an image ... that's an additional $30,000

fine ... >>

 

 

I'm not a copyright lawyer (and never have been), but a quick glance led me to a provision entitled "Fraudulent

Removal of Copyright Notice" found at Sec. 506(d).

 

That is a criminal offense. The fine for violation of that particular section, however, is not $30,000, but

rather "not more than $2500."

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

 

I don't know whether that is the section he had in mind. There is another provision -- a statutory

damages provision rather than a criminal fine -- that enables a holder of copyright to recover statutory damages

" ... of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just."