Is this watermark effective but not overly intrusive/distracting?

[richterjw]

<p>Because I post a lot online and have had some recent occurrences of illicit photo "borrowing," I'd at least like to get some mileage out of it. So I've worked up a watermark to implement on my web-display photos. So my question is, is this effective enough without being overly distracting or intrusive? Thanks. JR</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>It is definitely intrusive and distracting ......</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Yes, it is "effective" in distracting viewers, but No in protecting your photos.<br />While the text is less intrusive, your logo in front of it has perhaps too much of dark and white contrast, but that could possibly vary on pictures with different subject. I would remove the logo and kept the text.<br />Few mouse clicks will remove your watermarks, so keep the picture size small that woulkd make it less marketable when stolen from your web site.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Anything across the middle of the image will be intrusive and distracting if visible at all. I prefer to place my watermark across the bottom. Sure, someone could crop it out, but they'll be wrecking the composition in many cases, and the fact that I have a more complete copy of the image proves that they cropped out the watermark, which has been found by the courts to violate the DMCA.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>I wouldn't spend much time on a site with obtrusive watermarks like that. A much smaller watermark at the bottom will reduce the chances of the image being considered public domain. A determined person will defeat any watermark. Like the old saying "locks keep honest people honest".</p>

[parv]

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/lennynt98/">http://www.flickr.com/people/lennynt98/</a>

 

<p>

... skip to "i've been getting a few email ..." for the rant about putting distracting mark, with which I agree to a point.

[richterjw]

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br>

Craig, I think you make a particularly good point, which makes a lot of sense.<br>

And Matthew, I definitely don't want to drive away any traffic. JR</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I've been thinking for some time about coming up with a non-intrusive or non-distracting watermark if only I can figure out how to get photoshop to do it automatically. I still don't understand Digimark dropdown menu dialog box and what it does. I can't get any watermark to show up. I guess I need to read the instructions. Rats!</p>

<p>One way I thought might be doable was to tile a photographer's name, very small and transparent spread out across the entire image where it blended into the image at 100% zoom, the level web browsers display images, but showed up zooming in. The display's built in antialiasing combined with jpeg compression would do most of the hiding. Then add a smaller viewable version placed in the corner out of the way.</p>

<p>That way when the image is found on another site with the viewable version cropped out all you have to do is zoom in, do a screenshot and show it to the thief.</p>

[parv]

Tim, you might be let known that your recent images have turned fuzzy.

 

;-}

 

I did see that demonstrated somewhere but the demonstration example was more horrible than visible, sharp text across middle of a face.

[irusan]

<p>It is distracting and intrusive but that's part of its purpose, is it not? You're not adding it as a way to advertise, you're adding it to help prevent (or lessen the odds) of the image being stolen. So, to that end, it needs to be somewhat intrusive. If it isn't, then that means you have a watermark that can easily be removed by the pirate.</p>

<p>It is a balancing act - how "in your face' do you want it to be while knowing that it detracts from the visual interest of the image itself?</p>

<p>Now, you've set the layer's fill to 0% and kept the opacity at 100%. It may be a less cumbersome mark if you drop the opacity down to about 50% and removed the text and just kept the logo.</p>

<p>It will still be visible enough to (hopefully) convince people not to steal it but not as bright as to completely interact with the image itself.</p>

<p>Just a thought..</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Watermarks are a damned if you do and a damned if you don't situation. You have a nice logo, as another posted-drop the text. If you feel the need for a watermark, place that logo at some level of transparency in the bottom right corner of an image.</p>

<p>As an aside, A/D's complain constantly about watermarks and how they move on to the next if a photographer uses them-if this is the case, and of such great concern-then why do sites such as Istock still watermark? I think they need to get a grip on reality and stop being so full of themselves if they believe an unobtrusive watermark is justification to refuse to consider hiring a photographer. I could post an online webinar from another site where a one time (well known) photo editor now turned consultant emphatically defends this practice, but I'm not sure if that would violate ToS on either of these two sites. I'm fairly sure all of the magazines this person worked for protected their work with copyrights.</p>

[irusan]

<p>Randall is absolutely right about A/D's getting annoyed with seeing watermarks and about the fact that they need to realize why watermarks are used.</p>

<p>Until that time, an option is to have a password-protected gallery to non-watermarked images and you can supply the A/D (or other client) the password.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Look at the website of any well-known photographer and you won't see any watermarks. If you want to make a lasting impression with your images, then why deliberately disfigure them?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I think watermarks are more ego than practical. If the watermark diminishes the quality of the view, as the one above does , no one is going to buy it anyway so it will be self-defeating. A ligitimate firm will pay you for your work for its commercial use. Someone who's going to steal it isn't going to buy it anyway under any circumstances. So if they stole it without the watermark to hang it in their house you really haven't lost anything. Martin's right. Don't disfigure them.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Look at the website of any well-known photographer and you won't see any watermarks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well of course, they've already made a name for themselves and the cash to go along with it. I'm also pretty certain they have a ton of images they've taken throughout their entire career so the comparative few they post online would be a drop in the bucket if they happened to get pilfered and redistributed without credit.</p>

<p>And anyone who would go so far as to make money off the illegal use of said images would eventually get caught and face a bank of highly paid lawyers. Why? Because they're well known.</p>

<p>I see watermarks more as advertising for those starting out wanting to make a name for themselves. If their images are as good as any other established professional's (and scouring the web will clearly show this to be true) then if their images are used or redistributed without credit, no one hears or cares about it, certainly not any highly paid lawyer as well. And I doubt you couldn't get any of them to take the case anyway.</p>

<p>I've seen some very tastefully done watermarks that actually makes the photographer look more professional when it's artfully designed and placed within an image. It's just most photographers doing this aren't graphic designers which I seriously suggest is a skill set Jeremy should consider boning up on.</p>

[leeshawndavison]

<p>Definitely intrusive. Diminshes your work...IMHO</p>

[dave_w11]

<p>im sorry but watermarks are not a safe way to protect your work if you don't want people to use your work then don't post it on the internet because a few minutes in photoshop is all it takes.I dont steal work or use anyone's photos with out permission i deleted this as soon as i was done. I did this just to show you, it took less than 5 min to take it off. I dont have a clue how to prevent it.</p>

<p>Dave</p><div></div>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>if you don't want people to use your work then don't post it on the internet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Also, if the watermark was located over an area difficult to clone to, its unlikely the demonstration would have occurred.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Not everyone can do that. Just because some people can gain access to a locked car or house doesn't mean one shouldn't lock the doors when they are not there. Also, placing a watermark over an area difficult to clone to would have made it unlikely that the demonstration here would have occurred. Watermarking will deter some infringing use. It also provides evidence of intentional infringement if it is removed which goes to damages for infringment. It also has a criminal aspect to it if I recall correctly.</p>

[dave_w11]

<p>Yes i agree not everyone can do this but but you take that risk when you put anything online. I have been on some sites that block the right click mouse function that would help if you had your own site and to shoot down that idea you can use snipit and get the photo anyway lol .</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[richterjw]

<p>I understand the principle of not posting if you don't want it stolen. I was more interested in making it inconvenient at least, but as Dave as more than adequately stolen, even that could be only minimally deterring to someone determined enough. A lot of good conversation on the topic here, though. JR</p>

[richterjw]

<blockquote>

<p>but as Dave as more than adequately stolen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Freudian slip there; I meant "shown" rather than "stolen." Sorry, Dave. JR</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I did a quick crude treatment of the kind of tasteful logo design integration of one of my images I've seen other photographers implement online especially wedding photographers. I'm not saying mine is all that artful but it's just a quick demo.</p>

<p>Just placing the logo right in the center is a bit tacky. This may get involved adjusting the layout, size and placement for every image having a different composition to fit the logo tastefully and legibly so pick about ten of your best and work it in as part of the image and not some affixed label.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You can pick up some pointers to get that high end sterling feel to typography logo design from this book...</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0972424091?ie=UTF8&tag=aworlib-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0972424091</p>

<p>It's what I cut my teeth on as an art director and graphic designer back in the early '80's. This is where the look of modern advertising and publishing design started. I used to drool when I'ld get my copy of U&lc magazine.</p>

<p>Yeah, I know old school stuff, so call me grandpa graphic.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>The picture is definitely better without the mark.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YcLH-351229784.jpg" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="10" width="700" height="534" /></p>

[otto1]

I don't intend to be contrarian, but I rather like the treatment of the originally posted image. It looks like a movie banner

screen. On the other hand, I am amongst those that does not like to browse images that have large defacing

watermarks.