water mark

<p>Hello Everyone,<br>

Please tell me when you deliver your final product to clients, do you put the stamp/water mark on every photo or you just use it to put it on your website or facebook? The reason I'm asking because, it just happened to me for the first time, after a month of delivery, client called and says I don't want your name on any of my photos, I want to enlarge some of them, its my family picture and I don't want to see it.<br>

So to respect client's will, I decided to give him the unedited files since he refused to pay me for reediting them, It was an engagement party. And to avoid this in future, should I discuss with clients ahead or I have the right to stamp it as a photographer. Please advise. Thanks.</p>

<p>You should never watermark photos that a client is paying for unless for some strange reason he want it.</p>

<p>RM: Just my opinion, but I go with the client ... who, technically hires you under his needs and wants. I have NEVER liked watermarking (I understand there is now software to easily remove such watermarks)... but you can, easily, put your name, your business, or whatever, on the back-side of the print. Discuss with each client as you suggest, and go from there. FWIW, I have a shot from THE RACE FOR THE CURE that is getting ready to go National/International with that organization. I work with them occasionally, and I know them ...they SPECIFICALLY thanked me for not watermarking, saying, "we are so thankful that you understand it is not about YOU, but THE RACE FOR THE CURE. Others, of course, will differ, and many will have good reasons to watermark. </p>

 

<p>I only watermark my proofs, never the final product delivered to the client.</p>

I've seen some clever watermarks but I've never seen one that makes the photo look better. Why would I

want to alter my images so they look worse? Add that to what's already been said about respecting the

recipients of the work and I think you have your answer. Just don't do it. Good luck. -- Wade

<p>The answer to this lies in copyright law, which clearly states (in most countries) that for any commissioned work the copyright lies with the person, persons or organisation that commissioned it. Therefore the client retains the right to dictate where when how and in what form the pictures can be published. However, the photographer has the right to keep possession of the original files - unless a contract varying statutory copyright law has been entered into.</p>

<p>It used to be clear-cut and understood in the days of film, that the client had every right to use their commissioned images as they saw fit, but not the right to demand possession of the physical media on which they were taken; i.e. the film or negatives, which remained the property of the photographer. Digital has made this arrangement less tenable, and IMHO professional photographers need to protect their interest by entering into a clear and mutually-agreed written contract with the client before accepting a job. It's no use arguing over who has the right to do what afterwards, since copyright law will generally come down in favour of the client.</p>

<p>My advice: Give your client a standard contract to sign with your conditions of use written into it. Then if the client wants to vary that contract you can open negotiations. OTOH if the client simply doesn't bother to read your contract before signing it, you're covered.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone, much appreciate the advise.</p>