Camera Labs

I couldn't tink of a betterp lace to put this. My quesion is about watermarking photos. I know it is a good idea because then I can have basically a copyright of the photo. But is there any database of some sort where there may be a lsiting of copyrights to these watermarks? I want to "stamp" my photos, but dont want to run into some kind of a legal snafu down the road. Don't know if this is clearly written but I hope somonecan send me in a good direction.

thanks

j

Im not sure what you are looking for? most people watermark with their names or usernames .....are you looking to use a symbol of sorts?

_________________
Digital SLR Photographer as of Janurary 2008
NIKON D90 w/grip || D300 w/grip || D2x || NIKKOR 18-105 ED VR || NIKKOR 50mm 1.8 || NIKKOR 70-300 ED VR || NIKKOR 70-200 2.8 || SIGMA 28-70 2.8 || 2x Teleconverter || SB-900 Flash || SB-600 Flash || SLIK Tripod

something to that effect. I don't want to just put my name or anything that can be directly tied back to me on them. Just want something to show they are mine. If I were to put ©(fill in the blank) does it need to be something that I register somewhere? I'm pretty new at this, and I am reading numerous other places at the same time that I am runnign this post, so hopefully with all of your help and some moe internet research I can get a clearer answer. Just trying to burn the candle from both ends, know what I mean?

THE COPYRIGHT mark is pretty much a warning for other people. that if they use it without the owners promission the owner has a right to sue under the article for copyright infragment or something to that effect.

On my Fotopic site besides all photos being watermarked at the bottom of the home page I have included this warning.

"All photographic images* on this website are © 2006-2008 Roy Matthews. This Web Site and any of its contents may not be copied, translated or distributed in any manner (electronic, web or printed) without the prior written consent of Roy Matthews. I will actively seek out copyright violations in print and on the Internet and will use full legal force to deal with any Copyright infringements. Any unauthorised commercial use, which includes - but is not limited to - publication in magazines, leaflets or on other websites, will be invoiced at a rate of GBP £250/Euro €322/USD $496 for each photograph used. (* Photographic images are defined as GIF & JPEG format image files.)"

_________________
Roy
EOS 350D, 40D + BG-E2N, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 430 EX Speedlite




My Fotopic

pretty much the answers i was looking for. so the watermark is a quasi-copyright. thank you very much!

I would say if it's for private use it's ok but not for earning money

you should be happy if some dude use your picture on a site ^^ perhaps redirecting to your site then your image would be fame ey ey ey...

_________________
Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF-S 17-85/4-5,6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L IS USM

As far as Flickr goes, regardless if you put a copyright sign, if you leave the rights setting as it is, it's 'all rights reserved'. I also never post anything larger than 1024 x 700.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

Hi jddwls,

legally speaking you have that copyright whether you mark them or not.

The visible watermarks you see on many internet-photos are there to make it less convenient for pirates to steal and use the image, in spite of the legalities.

No, you do not have to register yourself or the watermark anywhere for the copyright to "kick in" so to speak.

In reality it is nearly impossible to stop photo-theft if you post your images on the internet. As soon as anyone can see your picture on your computer, it means that you already HAVE a copy of your image on their hard-disk.

The best way to guard yourself is by:
- post only low-resolution images on the internet (640X480 or 800X600)
- have a visible mark/watermark on your photo

The reality is that the internet is a global domain. If you are a US citizen and some pirate in say Hong Kong copies your image and use it for a local website, the effort and money it takes to even get to the point of any legal action is enough to make you old before your time.

Unless you are an accomplished revenue-generating photographer, it's hard to prove any financial damage anyway.

The internet is not policed for such matters. The agencies trawling the net are after bigger fish and with the many trillions of images on the internet, you can imagine how impractical it would be.

Cheers

I understand why some of you guys put a visible watermark on your photos.. but I really wish you wouldn't If you're using flickr, I wonder if it's possible to add a visible watermark on the big photos and leave the smaller one clear. If it's not, I'm going to suggest that they incorporate that facility. I just often see photos with dirty great watermarks on them that really take away the impact away. Alex here doesn't do too bad a job of watermarking his photos, it's fairly subtle but the horrible big drop shadowed/outlined comic-sans watermarks that I've seen on a few occasions.. I really don't like it! It's a shame people have to do this.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

Yar, smaller res shots ftw.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

I have an optional subtle watermark added across the middle of all my images when I upload them onto my web account with Photium. It's not as elegant compared to without the mark, but there's sadly the need to protect images today. Images at 1024x700 can still be printed acceptably, but that's not the main problem. Digital theft and then submission to a stock site is increasingly common, and by giving such a sized copy is sufficient for their purposes.

_________________
Nikonian

http://www.edtangphotography.com
http://journeysintophotography.blogspot.com/

Hmm, thats a bit of a bummer. I would've thought there would be minimum resolution requirements for stock sites?? I've started uploading at 800 pixels wide just recently.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

Alex, show me a pic of your watermarks...
i wanna learn

_________________
Canon EOS 40D - Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - Canon EF 50/1,8 II - Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - Speedlite 430 EX - Lowerpro Nova 4 AW
My Flickr