Photographer names on images, why?

[Landshark99]

Just curious why most here have their name on their images. Are you concerned with copyright, image stealing or unauthorized use of the image. Many years ago I did that on my personal images, but stopped because I sort of came to the conclusion, that I could not control anything i post. In the 45 plus years of shooting for the entertainment industry, my images have been stolen, misused and sold tens of thousands of times. Even back in the day before rampant internet abuse ,there was not much one can do. I know wedding/family portrait photographers use to watermark their proofs so clients could not make prints on their own, but even that has changed where they just give up the images most times now. A funny and strange thing now is that having worked at this for so long, when there is some sort of notice of illness or death with one actor or another, many times it will be my head shot of them that they use on the news. Have no idea from whom they got the image but most of time a search on google can find those stolen images.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Many years ago it was not so easy to protect copyright but with the advent of the internet etc
and electronic tagging it is much easier to track images and ID copyright infringement..

Each to his own, but as you indicate most on the forum protect their images with watermark
details on their photos as well as metadate including photographer and copyright.

Many photo competitions these days also run expansive copyright scans to prevent copyright
infringement.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

After the first time I sold an image I had a logo made up, but I have pretty much never used it because I think it makes the image look dirty. It's like a stain on a white shirt to me...

 

[Landshark99]

Understand tracking the image, but pursuing legal recourse seems like a futile effort. Even some of my biggest clients with huge resources gave up chasing down image theft.
I get why a policing a competition makes sense but other wise I just do not care much anymore pursuing my stolen images.

 

[Landshark99]

After the first time I sold an image I had a logo made up, but I have pretty much never used it because I think it makes the image look dirty. It's like a stain on a white shirt to me...

I guess that was my thought it sort of distracts form the image and I wonder how much the image is protected by it.

 

[Landshark99]

The interesting thing with photo credits is most of the time my photo credit is correct, but there are times when my image has been credited to another shooter and even stranger I have seen my credit on images I did not take.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I share mine in places where there is chance of them being pinched, so I always put a copyright on, though it's easily removed on a jpeg. I do have it in the exif as well though.

 

[Astacus]

There's a chap on Twitter who post birds from China. He is either the most awesome photographer I have seen, or he shares the work of others. I wish he'd include the name of the photographer, even it is always him.

 

[Gaz]

I put my name on some of mine because lightroom makes it easy to do, and one day, someone might see something they like, and my hobby could turn some cash over. If they cant find me, they wont.

 

[Astacus]

that's fair enough, and I have no such motivation. I do get irritated when images are posted without due credit though.

 

[-ST-]

When I first arrived here, I noticed that names on images looked like part of the culture here.
I did some digging, and it seems photographers put their names on their photos

• to protect their intellectual property
• for advertising
• to look professional

As for the first two points above.
It turns out it's easy to remove watermarks from photos.

Since identity means little to me, I long ago stopped trying to protect my intellectual property. As for advertising, I have no use for that. However, I hoped I might fit in better here if I put some kind of signature or watermark on my photos, so I added a subtle watermark.

In the end, I forgot about it, except for a mildly nagging thought that I should go into Capture One and figure out how to turn off that feature.

Here are a few things I've come across today.

https://mastinlabs.com/blogs/photoism/7-reasons-why-you-should-stop-using-watermarks-now

Should Photographers Watermark Photos in 2020? - Absolutely Not. Here's Why...

...not watermarking images may provide additional opportunities to generate inbound links and in turn, improve your rank in organic searches.

puptrait.com

I have just turned off the watermark feature in Capture One, but I still have contact information buried in the image file, but I can't remember how I got that in there.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I don't watermark my images, but I'm not a professional shooter.

Sadly, many watermarks (especially the discreet ones) are easily removed by the new "AI" object removal tools we see in photo-processing software.

Depending on context, I think watermarks can be useful in identifying the photographer.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

In my view watermarks on images, as well as photographer/copyright holder rights in the metadata are
appropriate......in an AI world I agree, copyright issues will become more difficult and confused but without
such precautions, for sure you are in no man's land, if, as a photographer, your critical images are plagiarised
by unscrupulous ethical others.

In a world in which media posts can very quickly go viral, would you wish to be in a position to argue copyright,
with no legal identification in place, after some unscrupulous dick head coins it in on the back of your original
work...???

Like most matters in photography it ultimately comes down to individual choice/preference.......i know upon which
side of the court bench i would prefer to be.

 

[Slug]

I like to have at least some credit for having taken the photograph. Mine are used by quite a few different organizations.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I like to have at least some credit for having taken the photograph. Mine are used by quite a few different organizations.

.....

 

[AlphaWorld]

I like to have at least some credit for having taken the photograph. Mine are used by quite a few different organizations.

And you deserve the credit!

 

[Ralph]

One thing I have heard of is this talk about watermarking our images.
There are reasons why many do them and just as many why others don't.

But I never heard of anyone ever complaining about people signing their painting's.
Why it is just another form of art so this is my question.
Why are more not complaining about painting's being signed.

And just to let you know I watermark my photo's, reason why = I am proud of them.
I know they will never stop them from being copied or stolen but I don't care about that.
It's my work and I want people to know who took it and this is all.

 

[Roland]

I made a nice logo, I add to my print outs. I keep it very tiny and only about 10% opacity. It is almost like “where is Waldo”. When I signed up with this forum, I decided to leave it off since nobody cares about watermarks as seen on those AI generated pictures.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Just curious why most here have their name on their images. Are you concerned with copyright, image stealing or unauthorized use of the image. Many years ago I did that on my personal images, but stopped because I sort of came to the conclusion, that I could not control anything i post. In the 45 plus years of shooting for the entertainment industry, my images have been stolen, misused and sold tens of thousands of times. Even back in the day before rampant internet abuse ,there was not much one can do. I know wedding/family portrait photographers use to watermark their proofs so clients could not make prints on their own, but even that has changed where they just give up the images most times now. A funny and strange thing now is that having worked at this for so long, when there is some sort of notice of illness or death with one actor or another, many times it will be my head shot of them that they use on the news. Have no idea from whom they got the image but most of time a search on google can find those stolen images.

It's called a watermark. Some people put them on as advertising. Some people think they protect their images from copying.

I don't bother - I enjoy making the images and I don't want to deface them. I'm lucky I don't make my living from my images.

 

[Clix Pix]

I've never bothered with a watermark..... I don't consider any of my images to be so remarkable, so unique, so stellar that someone is going to snatch them and if they do, well, I probably would never know unless one were to pop up as a billboard or in print advertising somewhere. A few times I have had people inquire as to whether or not they could download (in the full resolution version) and use one of my images as their wallpaper on their digital device(s) and I have always politely refused. For all I know they might have grabbed what was shared online anyway and made that their wallpaper or whatever.....

When I share images online I don't want some watermark, no matter how small or how tastefully designed, inevitably mucking up the image and detracting from the presentation I intend(ed). I am discriminating, too, in which images I choose to share online in public forums (for many reasons Instagram and FB are absolutely not under consideration at all and I post no images there).

 

[Slug]

To each their own, just as signing a painting I do the same for any image I feel proud enough to post or display.
It's not in anyway designed to prevent anyone else from using it, in fact I'm quite chuffed if anyone else likes it enough to borrow.
Usually they ask and acknowledge the photographer, but on occasions I'll recognize one that I know is mine and I leave a little comment with a grin!
It's no big deal one way or the other.

 

[AlphaWorld]

To each their own, just as signing a painting I do the same for any image I feel proud enough to post or display.
It's not in anyway designed to prevent anyone else from using it, in fact I'm quite chuffed if anyone else likes it enough to borrow.
Usually they ask and acknowledge the photographer, but on occasions I'll recognize one that I know is mine and I leave a little comment with a grin!
It's no big deal one way or the other.

Please don’t think I’m deprecating the use of a watermark.

I was speaking of my attitude to adding a watermark to my own images.

 

[Slug]

Please don’t think I’m deprecating the use of a watermark.

I was speaking of my attitude to adding a watermark to my own images.

No sweat, my understanding of a watermark is a translucent text or image over the top of the subject which pretty much spoils the image for both copy and viewing. I don't support that unless the image is particularly precious or it's a commercial post. I simply use a small tag in the corner which doesn't affect the image or anyone else.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I've seen them used that way - I've seen wedding photographers use them on proofs, for example.

 

[Ralph]

This question comes up all the time and there are all sorts of reasons to why people watermark their images.
But I never see this same question asked of people who put their names to painting.
Why is it so accepted that they are allowed to mark their images with a pat on the back.
But as soon as a person with a camera does the same thing it gets questioned.
I am not going to give reasons to why but just say ask painters the same question.

 

[iamdlewis]

I don't personally use watermarks. I only question why people use them when they have large ones and place them somewhere that interferers or the coloring clashes with the image.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I don't personally use watermarks. I only question why people use them when they have large ones and place them somewhere that interferers or the coloring clashes with the image.

I've seen that used on proofs when a wedding photographer sends proofs to a client to choose images for an album. The idea being to make them usable for choosing images, but not usable to print - if they don't do that, people don't buy prints from the photographer - they print the proofs.

 

[iamdlewis]

I've seen that used on proofs when a wedding photographer sends proofs to a client to choose images for an album. The idea being to make them usable for choosing images, but not usable to print - if they don't do that, people don't buy prints from the photographer - they print the proofs.

I would expect watermarks on proofs but on final images it seems silly to me.