to include or not include

[gary_newgali]

<p>Hello<br>

I am having a website built to sell, or attempt to sell digital prints. I've looked at over a hundred sites offering similar things. Some artists have the copyright symbol and their name on each image, while others do not. Do you think a buyer would be distracted from the image? What is the best practice? <br>

next question, should I apply the symbol/name(if the answer is yes), on all images, before I turn my images over to the designer, or do most designers want original images?<br>

I appreciate the thought that goes into replying to people's posts.<br>

thanks</p>

[acedigital]

<p>Yes, I would put a SMALL copyright symbol and your name or logo in a CORNER not a real watermark obscuring the photos.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Ask yourself, would you purchase a print with a name/logo printed in the photo?</p>

<p>It's generally accepted practice that "art" prints are signed by the artist, not imprinted in the image.</p>

<p>I put my copyright notice on images for the web, but never on images for clients or for prints for sale.</p>

<p>As for the designer wanting "original" images, you should ask your designer what size/resolution he/she wants for the site.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[funcrunch]

<p>Some photo hosting sites like Zenfolio (which I use) will add the watermark for web viewing only; when the photo is purchased, whether digital or print, the watermark does not appear. How large to make the watermark and where to put it is a point of debate. I've drifted toward making mine more prominent as I've been aggravated by Facebook users cropping it out and using images without payment or attribution, but now I'm considering going the more minimalist route as I've realized determined people are going to crop/clone them out no matter what I do.</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>FWIW, there's a further discussion of this issue in www.danheller.com.</p>