Is Watermarking a photo enough?

My question is: Is putting a watermark on a photo enough for someone not to print it or replicate it as their own? Or do I also need to make the resolution smaller?

 

Cheers

 

Alex

There are lots of possible answers to this one. Some people will crop out the watermark, depending on how critical that area of the image is. So in that case, maybe a lower res file would do. Perhaps apply a heavier compression so that it looks okay on a mobile device, but not so great when printed.

 

If it's on a website only, you can protect the image behind an invisible layer of a lower quality version of that image. So that when someone wants to download the image, they're getting the lower quality version. Or, you can divide it into multiple strips, so that you can't just download the whole file with one action.

I think it depends on the situation.

 

One is portraits where someone paid for their own picture, but with restrictions on its use.

As well as I know, there are (almost) invisible watermarks that can be digitally detected if, for example,

someone tries to make a print through a commercial service. Also, prints often have printing on the

back saying not to duplicate them.

 

But the question sounds like you are asking a different question. Of someone selling a non-portrait,

maybe a scenic view, as their own. The traditional method of suing for copyright infringement

is not so efficient. The invisible watermarks might work here, too, but again I don't know

enough about them.

 

In the case of digital images, there are some tricks that play around with the bits in ways

that are not (supposed to be) visible. But most won't survive an analog copy. I believe that

there are some that will survive an analog copy, such as scanning of a print, but I don't

know the details of them.

Kind of like a No Trespassing sign - it will work for the Law Abiding. I don't even bother. I can always make more photos, they apparently can't and steal.

There are lots of possible answers to this one. Some people will crop out the watermark, depending on how critical that area of the image is. So in that case, maybe a lower res file would do. Perhaps apply a heavier compression so that it looks okay on a mobile device, but not so great when printed.

 

If it's on a website only, you can protect the image behind an invisible layer of a lower quality version of that image. So that when someone wants to download the image, they're getting the lower quality version. Or, you can divide it into multiple strips, so that you can't just download the whole file with one action.

It seems that the one I was thinking about is called Digimark:

 

Digimarc copyright protection in Photoshop

 

There are a lot of things that can be done to a digital image that won't survive various

modiications to the image, such as printing, and then scanning the print.

This one is supposed to survive that.

 

Method and apparatus for watermarking digital bitstreams

Edited January 10, 2021 by glen_h

I cannot imagine, for even a brief moment, that anyone would be at all interested in any of my images, for any purpose other than a 'How not to do it' Tutorial. This is not a carte blanche to anyoneone to actually purloin my intellectual property, but should they do so, I hope they can sell it to fund the therapy they unquestionably require :(:oops::(

Apologies for this long response! It wasn't my intention, but when I started writing, it just grew and grew. The length has nothing to do with my experience or expertise. Just with my level of 'engagement' (and having nothing better to do).

 

IHMO, solutions depend a lot on your situation. On things like:

- where and how to you provide/publish digital images?

- for what purpose? Commercially to prospective buyers? As an amateur just wanting to protect your 'author' rights?

- for what reason do you think your images might be re-used without permission? What would be the consequences?

- what sizes (in pixels) of images do need to provide/publish to your audience? In particular, do they need to be able to 'zoom in' on smaller parts of an image? This would require a higher resolution than for 'general viewing'.

 

I think that digital replication and unauthorized printing are 2 separate issues, but let's start with a basic question:

 

What makes you and your images a target for unauthorized re-use?

These days anyone can find a wide range of images on just about any location, subject or theme by multiple photographers. Via google, Facebook, Flickr, 500px etc. and on (micro-)stock images sites. The internet is awash with digital images, many of which can be freely re-used under one of the 'creative commons' 'licenses. Or just by simply asking permission. If you're a (semi-)commercial photographer, it's understandable that you want protect your 'intellectual property'. You may even need to protect images in your 'portfolio' if these have been exclusively licensed to clients. Otherwise, it's worth asking yourself what makes your photos so special, what the level of risk is and what the consequences would be. The answers determine the mitigation measures you might want to take.

 

Printing:

The digital image size (in pixels) required to make good quality prints (at say, 300 dpi) is much higher than for digital viewing. Looking at that the other way round, it doesn't make any sense to provide/publish digital image files that have a greater resolution (and size) than your digital viewers need. One limiting factor is the 'physical resolution' of the digital devices that your images are going to be viewed on. Device resolutions are gradually increasing (see this website for a full list) but unless you're dealing with a specialist audience, Full HD (1980 x 1080) is about the maximum resolution most people have. So even if you provided/published images in Full HD, the maximum size of photos at 300dpi would be around 6 1/2 inches by 3 1/2. There are ways of increasing the digital image size (for printing) but these would reduce the dpi resolution.

 

It's also worth asking yourself whether you actually need to utilize each and every pixel of 'physical resolution' on a viewing device. It depends a bit on individual photos but viewers often don't really perceive any quality difference between the highest resolution jpg image and a somewhat lower resolution. A digital image that has a higher resolution than viewing devices is only important for 'pixel peeping'' (zooming in) and viewing/editing very small details.

 

Digital image replication

This is, I think, the most common way in which digital images are re-used without permission. Some photo websites have mechanisms in place that prevent visitors from saving a copy of images. Otherwise, it's easy to save a local copy of an image and re-use or republish it. Again, limiting the size and resolution of images to what your audience needs, limits the extent to which your images can be misused for other purposes. Based on a couple of samples, Shutterstock limits the size of its "Full Size" image views to 1500 px wide. So even leaving aside the pervasive Shutterstock watermarking, the maximum photo print width at 300 dpi would be 5". It's also worth noting that Shutterstock doesn't use the whole display 'real estate' to display their 'Full Screen "images

Watermarking

Watermarking has IMHO both an upside and a downside. If the main purpose of publishing digital images is to license/sell them, then watermarking can be a great deterrent. It's difficult to re-use an image when it has the logo of the owner plastered all over it! So it's worth looking at how stock photo organizations (like Shutterstock) use watermarks. The watermarks are pervasive throughout the image but 'light' enough to allow visitors to 'see through them' to see the image. Could they be 'edited out'? Possibly, but IMHO it would be so time-consuming and lead to such poor results that it would not be worth the effort. It's just cheaper to pay for a license. More discreet watermarks like ''© <name>"at the top/bottom of a photo may deter some potential re-users but are unlikely to deter more determined re-users. the ''© <name>" can usually be cropped or edited out.

 

The downside for amateur users is that watermarks often distract from the content of their photos and (IMHO) serve little purpose other than the wish to see their to see their name (or brand) associated with their photo. Which is often not so much different from hundreds of similar photos .

 

Mike

Is putting a watermark on a photo enough for someone not to print it or replicate it as their own

 

Sadly, the answer is really 'NO".

 

Low resolution is a deterrent, but some people don't care about the quality of the image.

Just a couple more personal observations:

- people who publish and maintain news and commercial websites continually strike a balance between the ''displayed (screen) sizes" of a digital image and the minimum file size (for the fastest page loading) of an image file that will give "good enough" viewed image quality. On the one hand they need to display good quality images in the allotted frame sizes on screens. At the same time, they want to minimize the file size of digital images (and videos) to minimize the 'load times' of the webpage. I don't pretend to know anything about how they do this, I just note that we see small, fast-loading pictures on news and other websites and (implicitly) find the quality sufficient. It might be worth checking the dimensions (pixels) of some of these photos.

- My image posting sizes on PN are either 1500 x 1000px or 1200 x 800 px

.

If you are afraid of people stealing your images then do one or two things.

1. Don't post.

2. If you need to post, copy right your image and find a way to track illegal uses of your images which isn't an easy thing to do.

Kind of like a No Trespassing sign - it will work for the Law Abiding. I don't even bother. I can always make more photos

Not a big deal for hobbyists, but certainly a much bigger issue for professionals who depend upon their work product for their livelihood.

My question is: Is putting a watermark on a photo enough for someone not to print it or replicate it as their own? Or do I also need to make the resolution smaller? . . .

 

They are two questions and the salient point being, in many circumstances have different answers.

 

Whilst a water mark and a low res display one your website will probably be a reasonable deterrent against people lifting the image file and then printing it, if someone wants to replicate the image as their own, (and especially if that replication is for their own web display): it is really difficult to guard against that behaviour.

 

WW

FWIW, etc:

In my not-so-new Olympus camera's menu, I was able to set the camera up to imprint my name and other info into the metadata on each image file.

As an aside, or perhaps significantly to this conversation, how far, in y'all's (more educated than my own) opinions, does specific ownership info embedded into a photo's EXIF data go to protect one's photos from piracy?

Someone can print one out, and the EXIF data doesn't go into the print.

 

If they sell them locally, you likely won't ever know, and neither will anyone else.

But also someone might use one for a 2nd grade book report.

 

I suspect it isn't hard to get your name out of the EXIF data if someone

wants it out. Then again, there are a lot of people who won't bother.

If it's on a website only, you can protect the image behind an invisible layer of a lower quality version of that image. So that when someone wants to download the image, they're getting the lower quality version. Or, you can divide it into multiple strips, so that you can't just download the whole file with one action.

Most approaches will not hinder a screenshots, etc.

 

There is no harm in mixing approaches, but watermarking is probably going to be the protection that works.

I don't pretend to know anything about how they do this

Mostly by reducing the number of colours in the pallet. Default pallets of have a lot of colours that are not actually in the photo, and removing those has absolutely no effect on quality. Some colours appear in a single pixel and will not be missed if blended with their neighbours. After that there is gradual degradation but many colours can be removed without the degradation being noticeable.

 

Color depth - Wikipedia

 

Online Image Сompressor

If you need to post, copy right your image

You own the copyright to your photographs from the moment you take them, and registration of a copyright claim is not a condition of copyright protection. Registration makes it a lot easier to pursue infringement claims but is not a requirement.

 

The copyright term is the life of the photographer plus 70 years. In the case of a work where the date of the creator’s death is unknown, the copyright expires 95 years after its first publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is sooner. These rules for duration of copyright also apply to works made for hire and works published anonymously or pseudonymously.

 

See here for more info.

Edited January 28, 2021 by otislynch

You own the copyright to your photographs from the moment you take them . . . [etc] . . . See here for more info.

 

Just pointing out, (as has been done before), the link states "mainly addresses U.S. copyright law".

 

Further, the finer details of the commentary, post #18, by David (otislynch) also seem to comment upon Copyright, pursuant to USA Law: Photo.net is a world-wide forum and Copyright Laws are not the same, world wide.

 

Probably reasonably important to point out this, in the Beginner Forum.

 

WW

Just pointing out, (as has been done before), the link states "mainly addresses U.S. copyright law".

 

Further, the finer details of the commentary, post #18, by David (otislynch) also seem to comment upon Copyright, pursuant to USA Law: Photo.net is a world-wide forum and Copyright Laws are not the same, world wide.

 

Probably reasonably important to point out this, in the Beginner Forum.

 

WW

It is indeed imprtant to mention that copyright is set out in international treaties, and that the U.S. of A. is one of the many signatories. That it is indeed the same in U.S.A. law as it is anywhere else.

What is peculiar to the U.S.A. is that obstacles have been put in place for anyone trying to pursue infringement. Your rights are the same. It is just made a bit more difficult to get your rights enforced.

It is indeed imprtant to mention that copyright is set out in international treaties, and that the U.S. of A. is one of the many signatories. That it is indeed the same in U.S.A. law as it is anywhere else.

 

What is peculiar to the U.S.A. is that obstacles have been put in place for anyone trying to pursue infringement. Your rights are the same. It is just made a bit more difficult to get your rights enforced.

 

If you mean this sentence to state that the Copyright Laws of the USA are the same as the Copyright Laws of the other signatories of (for example) the Berne Convention, I understand that is incorrect.

 

In simple terms, paraphrasing legal advice to my business: these conventions, or treaties, set out the rules of Copyright when there is exchange or grievance between the governances of the signatories. They are a ‘baseline’ if you will, outlining how Copyright endures across the world (of the Signatories).

 

However each signatory, as a Sovereign State, may (and many do) have differing Laws, relating to Copyright.

 

One which has been discussed here on Photo.net many times is "You own the copyright to your photographs from the moment you take them”, which is specifically not the case, in many countries, for example in the specific situation of "Photographic Commissioned Portraiture".

 

WW

Just pointing out, (as has been done before), the link states "mainly addresses U.S. copyright law".

 

Further, the finer details of the commentary, post #18, by David (otislynch) also seem to comment upon Copyright, pursuant to USA Law: Photo.net is a world-wide forum and Copyright Laws are not the same, world wide.

 

Probably reasonably important to point out this, in the Beginner Forum.

 

WW

Sorry! I know this and should have stated it. There are many differences like this around the world that could affect us, eg whether and in what countries we need a release to post a photo taken in full public view in a public area. The one consistent fact around the world is that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Note that the OP assumes that copyright laws won't be followed.

 

I have known some to make proof prints with words right across the middle,

such that one could decide which ones to order, but otherwise wouldn't want to

display. Otherwise, at screen resolution they won't enlarge to wall display

sized prints very well.

If you mean this sentence to state that the Copyright Laws of the USA are the same as the Copyright Laws of the other signatories of (for example) the Berne Convention, I understand that is incorrect.

 

In simple terms, paraphrasing legal advice to my business: these conventions, or treaties, set out the rules of Copyright when there is exchange or grievance between the governances of the signatories. They are a ‘baseline’ if you will, outlining how Copyright endures across the world (of the Signatories).

 

However each signatory, as a Sovereign State, may (and many do) have differing Laws, relating to Copyright.

 

One which has been discussed here on Photo.net many times is "You own the copyright to your photographs from the moment you take them”, which is specifically not the case, in many countries, for example in the specific situation of "Photographic Commissioned Portraiture".

 

WW

Well, yes, each country has its own law, but they all embody the same principle. Who made something owns the rights to it by force of being the maker alone.

 

It's not always the person pressing the shutter release. For instance when an employee charged with the task. Et cetera.

Sorry! I know this and should have stated it. There are many differences like this around the world that could affect us, eg whether and in what countries we need a release to post a photo taken in full public view in a public area. The one consistent fact around the world is that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Whether you need a release and such matters is not about copyright law, but privacy law. Something else entirely.

Edited January 28, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

Whether you need a release and such matters is not about copyright law, but privacy law. Something else entirely.

I wasn’t suggesting that it is. I used it as an example of many regional and national legal issues around the world that affect us as photographers, no matter where we live:

 

 

This is especially true now that we have instant world-wide access and exposure.