Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.








Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions


Watermark Concern

Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 10:02 AM

I believe FAA needs to work on a better watermark, believe I am not alone on this one, thanks!


Oldest Reply

Posted by: Janine Riley on 02/02/2013 - 11:48 AM

& what would you like to see Luis ?


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 11:59 AM

Hi there Janine, I would like to see an improved watermark, by default it would be on the center (if you want), it would be nice to have an option to have a bigger watermark and we may choose where we want it to be, despite buyers don't enjoy them etc we would accept that fact

there could be a search feature too (like a checkbox) regarding that matter for buyers so they see pictures with or without trademark


Posted by: Heather Applegate on 02/02/2013 - 11:59 AM

I don't bother using it anyways, if someone is going to steal the work off this site all they get is a low res file and its easy to crop off or clone out a watermark. Work looks better to buyers without it.


Posted by: Greg Jackson on 02/02/2013 - 12:06 PM

"...there could be a search feature too (like a checkbox) regarding that matter for buyers so they see pictures with or without trademark"

What would stop a supposed "buyer" from un-checking the watermark box and then copying the image? Just a thought.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 12:09 PM

Hi Greg, everything can happen pretty much but the possibility would be a lot inferior right? what I am saying it's just an option, everybody that doesn't agree can continue uploading and selling their work as they wish :)


Posted by: Janine Riley on 02/02/2013 - 12:11 PM

I like the idea of the mobility - but I would never want to see it direct center - way too distracting.
What about..... A watermark that does not appear on the screen for viewing - but shows up upon transfer or printing.
( That might be a clue to how very ignorant that I am to understanding technology - but a great idea non the less )


Posted by: Greg Jackson on 02/02/2013 - 12:12 PM

"...what I am saying it's just an option, everybody that doesn't agree can continue uploading and selling their work as they wish :) "

Absolutely. :)


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 12:28 PM

Janine are you wanting our work to be printing with a watermark? not understanding sorry but isn't that what buyers don't like also?


Posted by: Roy Erickson on 02/02/2013 - 12:49 PM

I've seen a couple of images where the watermark obscures the focus of the image - one was an eagle flying across - the watermark almost completely obscured the bird.

I don't use the watermark - I do put my "signature" and © on my work - somewhere near the bottom edge. There IS a problem with that - the gallery wrap canvas - that signature could get wrapped in the warp.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 12:54 PM

Hi Roy, thanks for sharing! Do you notice less sales because of displaying your signature or you have never tried without it?


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/02/2013 - 1:37 PM

many have complained about the watermark. but honestly - one in the center would hurt my sales. while many say it doesn't hurt their sales i think it's just ugly to have on there. if i had a choice i would use my name as a watermark. i sign my work, and sometimes hide my face in it if it's a digital work.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 1:41 PM

Hi Mike! what I am asking is just the option to have, I also don't think center would be the right choice, want us to be more protected


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/02/2013 - 1:49 PM

There are no plans to change the watermark as far as I am aware


Posted by: Janine Riley on 02/02/2013 - 1:50 PM

No Luis, not if it was printed off FAA - because if I am correct in my understanding the copy they print off is of a higher resolution that what is displayed ( ?).

& Roy, with the gallery wraps - it was mentioned in a thread that what "wraps" around the frame is an extension of the work ( it would be good to have that verified too ) .

"Cause otherwise - my signature is going to be getting A LOT BIGGER, & I really would not prefer that because I don't like my signature to distract at all.


Posted by: Janine Riley on 02/02/2013 - 2:03 PM

" Ooops.". Well, there's your answer.

There is a thread that always pops up for suggestions in case your interested Luis.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 2:28 PM

thanks for all replies, appreciate it, hope to hear something from FAA


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/02/2013 - 2:30 PM

You just did :)


Posted by: Janine Riley on 02/02/2013 - 2:35 PM

Luis - that is our lovely Ms. Beth, the Forum moderator. Although looking rather predatory these days, she is a "shape shifter" - you never quite know how, & when she is going to appear - but always when you are in need of help.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/02/2013 - 2:36 PM

aaaaaaaaahhhh ok, my bad, thanks for letting me know :D


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/02/2013 - 2:53 PM


Posted by: Christos Georghiou on 02/03/2013 - 3:56 AM

I also think it would be great if we got more options for watermarking. People who don't want them could still opt out. I would like to be able to more heavily watermark my work.


Posted by: Semmick Photo on 02/03/2013 - 4:08 AM

As a seller we already have the option to enable or disable the watermark. But what luis is saying, to add an option to choose the placement and size of the watermark. Which can only be an improvement. Many sites have this option, so why not FAA? Copyright and image theft is a big issue these days, and FAA should at least do everything possible to minimize theft. They make money of our art work, so protecting their artist should be a high priority, in my humble opinion.

The images displayed on FAA are big enough to be used in blogs, on facebook, etc, I have already found several images of mine in Pinterest, pinned from FAA. And as soon as an image is on Pinterest, its rendered worthless.

Luis has a very valid concern, and I am really surprised that this issue is taken so lightly by FAA, in my humble opinion.

Apologies if I am out of line, its just a concern for photographers to protect their livelihood.


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/03/2013 - 4:29 AM

"And as soon as an image is on Pinterest, its rendered worthless."

What happens to it? Does it instantly disappear from all the other places it's posted? Do people yank it off their walls and throw it away? Does Google suddenly lose it? C'mon, man.


Posted by: Semmick Photo on 02/03/2013 - 4:33 AM

Let me ask you this then, what do you think happens when an image is on pinterest?

I cant even believe you are a photographer talking like that.


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 10:49 AM

The images of mine that I have found on Pinterest have gotten hundreds of hits on FAA that I presume they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Whether that leads to more sales or not is still questionable, but you can disable the "Pin" option if you don't like it.

I think this is mostly an issue for stock photographers. If you are interested in making fifty cents on an image being used in a blog, then I guess it's a big deal. For me, I am interested in the sales I get for 30"-72" prints, and nobody's going to get one of those from a 900px image.


Posted by: Semmick Photo on 02/03/2013 - 11:01 AM

Ok Loree, so I guess its ok then. I am really sorry that I am also a stock photographer. Shame on me.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 11:04 AM

all i know is, a lot of my stuff is transported to pinterest one way or the other, and i never get sales from there, or even hits from there unless i click on it. i would be more open having it there, but their terms says they have the right to sub-license the work. and that is where the harm is. they are selling my images, not me. they never went into what they were planning on sublicensing though. it used to say sell.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 11:06 AM

Don't get defensive. All I'm saying is that I personally do not mind if someone uses one of my images (low-res) on their blog or whatever, as long as it links back to my sales page. I look at it as a form of advertising. I have actually had bloggers ask me if they can use my images and I gladly send them a low-res version on the condition that they link it back to my AW.

Like I said, you can disable the pin button if you want.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/03/2013 - 11:25 AM

like we have said here it would be an option, it would make us less worried about "thieves", the ones not concerned nothing would happen


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 11:30 AM

you can remove the pin button, but it doesn't stop people from taking it. i've found stuff of mine taken from google, the search here, the buy it page, their own hard drives, etc. you can't stop it. even with watermarks i've seen people use those as well. contact info on the watermark would be nice. to be able to control where it goes or whatever would be nice. if i could say this is a Mike Savad - then they can at least look that up. but i'm not sure how to watermark it when it leaves here, and yet be invisible to the viewer.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Semmick Photo on 02/03/2013 - 11:31 AM

Loree, its not about pinterest, its about not having a watermark to protect images. Pinterest was an example, but the problem is the internet as a whole.


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 11:35 AM

"Loree, its not about pinterest, its about not having a watermark to protect images. Pinterest was an example, but the problem is the internet as a whole."

And yet you don't even use the watermark that IS available?

Per Beth, earlier in the thread, this is not something FAA has any plans to change.


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 11:59 AM


Have you disabled the pin button? I had it disabled at first, but then I enabled it. If someone pins using the button from your FAA page, then when someone clicks the image on pinterest, it links back to your FAA page. If you have the button disabled, then they are probably using a screen grab or something and it doesn't link back here. I can tell when someone pins something of mine because all of a sudden it gets hundreds of hits in a couple of days. As I said, who knows if sales will improve because of all those clicks, but at least it does link back.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 12:10 PM

as soon as he gave us that feature i turned off. but it only turns it off for that page, not the rest of the site. you can still grab it from other parts of the site.

while sales might go up - i doubt it considering what a jumble that site is, and how hard it is to find anything there. there still is that permission to sell my work. but not specifying what that place is. and in that agreement, if you keep the pin button there, you are giving that permission. but you are also giving it by pinning it even if the button isn't there.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 12:17 PM

Well, I'm no attorney, but I didn't agree to anything. I am not a member of pinterest, so I never agreed to their TOS. Whether they will actually try to start selling things people pin on that site remains to be seen, but I doubt their agreement will hold up in court if they do. Especially for stuff people pin that they don't own...


Posted by: Jason Politte on 02/03/2013 - 12:30 PM

I think Loree has it right. As long as you, the artist, haven't agreed to their ToS, they have no right to sub-license anything of yours. If they did, they would face lawsuits galore. I've dealt with copyright issues in the past from some major companies and most will go out of their way not to actually infringe. Reputable companies will do whatever they can to make it right if they do infringe.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 12:42 PM

you didn't agree, but as it's outlined in the terms - anyone that sends content is under the understanding that they have gotten your permission ahead of time. and if you leave that pin button on your site, you also agree to their terms - which is to sell the work that's uploaded there. at whatever size it was uploaded as. they hold themselves harmless should they go to court, and the people who send it there, they would be in the courtroom. would it hold up? i don't know, i do know that i wouldn't bother suing because it's a lost cause. at the same time i don't want my work on there. i've found several hundred, all coming from here --- ALMOST ALL --- from the the selling page, some complete with frames. while it links back here, i don't want them there. it also weakens my other links leading people to that site and not mine.

just read the contract there and you'll see the clauses they put in about other people posting on your behalf, and you leaving that button on your site. i'm sure there are many lawsuits building, they just aren't in the news yet. if they didn't want to infringe, then they shouldn't have sub-license in the contract.

there is a POD, i won't name it, but many people like it. however in their terms they too have sub-license in the contract. people have been finding their artwork on phones made in china. and when they questioned this site about what's going on, their account was closed and they were banned from using the site. all the while they can't get at their images because of that. that's what i see happening here as well.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Loree Johnson on 02/03/2013 - 2:24 PM

Well, I guess I'll take my chances then. :-) Like you, I found that people will pin things anyway, so I decided to enable the button because I prefer to have it link back to me than not.

And the difference is that on that other POD, artists agree to their TOS by uploading their work.


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/03/2013 - 4:04 PM

"they are selling my images, not me."

Mike, you're stretching. Pinterest isn't, hasn't, nor will they, sell any of your images. Your statement is false and misleading. You really need to find a way to get past your Pinterest prejudice.


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/03/2013 - 4:10 PM

"Let me ask you this then, what do you think happens when an image is on pinterest?"

Semmick, my website hits go up with traffic coming from Pinterest. Indirectly (I've written about this before) sales go up. I don't really "do" social media, but Pinterest has been great for me. And it would be great if traffic and sales didn't go up. I like pretty much everything about Pinterest. It's genuinely useful to me, and to millions of others.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 4:20 PM

dan - without proof you have NO IDEA AT ALL if they are doing that or not. none. you can't just assume they won't do that because they haven't been caught yet. a POD site was caught. they will too. the fact is - they have it in the contract. and that's enough for me.

like if it said, your first born may be sold into slavery. he probably won't, but you signed the contract stating it could happen. my statement is not false or misleading - read the contract they have. and you tell me what they meant by SUB-LICENSE?

i have no pinterest prejudice, i only call them as i see them. and this one, no one liked the first contract when they just said they will sell the images outright. since people have no idea how to read these contracts, kind of like you it seems. you can't glaze over the parts you don't understand or know about. and you can't just go into denial and assume that just because the site looks nice and the people are friendly, that they are never going to do what i just said they can do. the fact is, the contract is there - can they use it in court? no, probably not. but that doesn't matter if your image was just sold around the world.

pinterest only works for you if you funnel people through it. there are very rarely a time that anyone just happens to find your image and goes there because they are interested. more often then not it's just another pretty picture to be added in another pile. the day they redid the contract, was the day the president of that site dumped all the stolen content, and replaced it only with his own stuff.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/03/2013 - 4:28 PM

Mike, your interpretation of Pinterest with respect to current copyright laws is wrong. I've explained it to you before. For you to be so fixated on your wrong interpretation calls everything else you say into question and undermines your advice to others. It makes you appear foolish.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 4:35 PM

the thing is, every time there is a thread about stolen content, abuse of copyright, images taken, etc, your always on the side of the person who stole it. and i don't really understand why. we speak of people taking images and china selling them and your right there slapping them on the back - way to go china, good job. and don't worry about the small images you can't do anything with a small image - even though you can, very much so do that. but your not seeing the big picture.

there are two sides to pinterest, the ones that love the site and will defend it, even if they are blind to what the contract actually says.

and the people who read the contract and understands what it means. i do very much under how it works, and about copyright law. they are allowing people to post images on their site that any other site would have to pay to have on their. and currently getting away with it, until they can't.

so tell me again - what does the term SUB-LICENSE mean to you? it doesn't need to be there. if they removed that word the contract would still be fine. there is no reason at all to put that there. if the said something like we reserve the right to sub-license your work as a function of this site, so we may sell advertising on that same page - then it's explained. but it's not. and it's not a fear. but you seem to be the expert here - do tell us what you think it means.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 4:58 PM

long, long ago there was a site called geocities. it was a site that people can make their own pages on their own little plot of web space. this was when the net was still kind of new. anyway, the place lasted for a good long time until one day yahoo bought them. they had in their terms - we have the right to sell, distribute, modify, license, etc your work. and you agree to this when you sign in and check off that you read and understood it. the problem was, the only way to get back into your account, even if it was just to erase your content, was to agree to those terms. and even if you got in and did just that, they i'm sure had a backup copy.

well, there was a huge fight and i know i for one was interviewed by cnn about it. they later backed down and said, we won't sell your stuff. and everyone was happy again.

about 2-3 years, that's how long it took for them to simply dump the line because there was no profit in there for them. they were planning on selling the stuff, that's why they bought the place. and this is the same thing. while they may not sell it, they are giving us the story that they may at some point. you just don't know how yet. until it happens. then it's too late. so yeah, i would air on the side of caution. i don't like my work there and yet it is. i'm a big picture person, i can see many different possibilities given with a certain set of instructions. and the way it's worded leaves much to think about.

the thing is with contracts is - if it's not clearly defined, it could mean anything at all. and in the case of contracts, just one word in the wrong place can and has, messed up trials.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/03/2013 - 5:03 PM

"this is the same thing. while they may not sell it, they are giving us the story that they may"

You stated that they are selling your images, Mike. They aren't. I just wanted to pull you back to reality.

Back to watermarks.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 5:06 PM

i don't know that one way or the other -the fact remains that they put sub-license in the contract and never once removed it. reality is, you never answered my question - what sub-license means to you.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Roy Erickson on 02/03/2013 - 5:12 PM

Dan is about the ONLY person I've ever heard say anything good for artists at Pinterest. and Far be it from me to get into a quarrel with Dan. Never expect to get the last word.


Posted by: Rose Santuci-Sofranko on 02/03/2013 - 5:22 PM

I'm not sure if somebody mentioned it, but I think it's Red Bubble that allows a safety feature of just putting a layer of Transparency over the images...that way if somebody "right clicks" all they are saving is the clear layer...not the artwork.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/03/2013 - 5:27 PM

they put a clear gif on it. but it's super easy to defeat. the code is still in there and it's easily defeated. if the image was shockwave, or whatever the equivalent is, maybe that would slow it down. they would have to take it as a screen grab.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Jose Elias - Sofia Pereira on 02/04/2013 - 2:57 AM

I'm also in favor for a better watermark. Although I understand that FAA doesn't want an intrusive watermark, in some images it is simply invisible.

Maybe the light colored letters should be outlined by a thin darker color, so that when they are placed over light tones the letter colors won't be seen but the dark outline compensates for this.

Best regards,
Josť Elias


Posted by: Kim Bird on 02/04/2013 - 4:58 AM

Need a watermark that covers more of the image. Where it is located now doesn't cover enough of the image to prevent people on the internet copying the art. A watermark that one could choose the position of would be better. Checkbox, lower center, lower right, lower left. for example.


Posted by: Menega Sabidussi on 02/04/2013 - 8:27 AM

the other thing - and this *does* go along with the watermark problem - is that all exif info has been stripped from the images. so you have 900px versions being grabbed via the new google image search without the embedded copyright notices that many add in the exif, thief clones out the easy watermark and the image sails onto the web again, no strings attached. then anybody can use it and it won't be free advertising anymore because even if someone were willing to credit, they can't.


Posted by: Jose Elias - Sofia Pereira on 02/05/2013 - 2:51 AM

I reinforce too the idea that wee need a much better watermark when we're talking about white or light backgrounds.

I could upload several hundreds of images to FAA that could serve a market I think it's being neglected at the moment but I won't until I can protect the image. That does not happen with the current location and light tone of the watermark.

So, at least a dark outline in the lettering of the watermark is a must, and a choice to position it would be a big plus.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/05/2013 - 7:35 AM

I will reiterate here; There are no changes planned for the watermarks.


Posted by: Luis Santos on 02/05/2013 - 7:46 AM

Elizabeth thanks for your reply again but please write this down as a future "improve" because files like the one I opened this topic are really unprotected, thanks again!

p.s: can you please check my preview on the following file because it ain't correct:


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/05/2013 - 8:14 AM

I have your ticket on this and have sent to Sean for him to take a look. You should hear back soon


Posted by: Constance Hessman on 04/18/2013 - 6:08 PM

I agree with, Luis. It is our art work we should all have an option. I think more artists would use this service if we had a better watermark option. More look than buy.


Posted by: Les Palenik on 04/19/2013 - 12:07 AM

I don't bother using it anyways, if someone is going to steal the work off this site all they get is a low res file and its easy to crop off or clone out a watermark. Work looks better to buyers without it.

I disagree on both counts.
1. The displayed picture can be easily copied and it is large enough for insertion into an average web page. Once, such a picture (without any text or other identification linked to the original artists) is lifted off the FAA site, it can travel and multiply easily and indiscriminately over all entire Internet.

2. If the watermark uses screening (faint, diluted text), it isn't objectionable to most viewers. I know some people here who use watermarks, however limited they are, and the watermarks are not stopping them from making sales.
If I'm a buyer, a tastefully placed watermark wouldn't disturb me at all, and on the other extreme if I could have really my way all the way, I would prefer to see and touch the actual print before I buy it. Displaying a watermark is relatively unobtrusive, yet reasonably affective anti-theft feature.

I agree with Ron and Luis that nowadays, there are capable and widely available tools to integrate a user-definable placement and appearance of watermarks onto the individual pictures and galleries, and it would be only fair and proper to provide such tools and leave the control to the artist.


Posted by: Danny Smythe on 04/19/2013 - 8:10 AM

Beth said that drop shadows on watermarks (to show up on white backgrounds) were agreed to, and would show up soon. But that was months ago. An update would be appreciated!


Posted by: Bob Galka on 04/19/2013 - 12:21 PM

I agree with Heather. I think you are all deluded to how easy it is to remove the FAA watermark from the displayed images. Especially if it is being done with the intent to redistribute it. Those folks are in no way stopped by it. I like Mike's idea of hiding something in the image that only you know about. Proof of the origin of the image. Thank you Mike.. I will be incorporating something like that in future images.



Posted by: Mike Savad on 04/19/2013 - 12:29 PM

Sell Art Online Photography Prints

in the first on i did the can. the second on i'm on the can and the bag.

they time to do, but in the end i think it's worth it, it becomes a run on joke. if you go to my folder and do a search there, and type self, you can see all the ones i'm in somewhere. at least the most obvious ones.

Art Prints
no matter how i put these in, the grid always seems to cut a piece off. you can find me on the hat in the center, but you can only see half of it.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Barbara Snyder on 04/19/2013 - 12:49 PM

Les Palenik: I disagree on both counts.
1. The displayed picture can be easily copied and it is large enough for insertion into an average web page. Once, such a picture (without any text or other identification linked to the original artists) is lifted off the FAA site, it can travel and multiply easily and indiscriminately over all entire Internet.

I agree with you Les, that the low resolution can be copied and the watermark removed, if someone would want to spend the time on it. And I agree that it can travel all over the Internet.

But what I don't see is where the damage is done? I guess someone can print out a small 5x7? 8x10? rough image if they wanted to, but do you really think that many people are doing that and what is the damage even if they are?

I used to do street fairs what seems now like a hundred years ago. I had two display tables full of small easy to steal items that we stored in cases with glass tops. As soon as I got all set up for business I took the tops off.

A friend of mine used to sell a very similar product. He never took the tops off his cases. At the end of two or three day weekend sale, I sold about three times as much as he did. He always complained. I told him to take the covers off his display cases but he refused to do it because he just could not stand the idea of someone stealing an item from him.

We had several items disappear every show we did. But we did three times the business of any other artist in the shows that kept their stuff covered up. It was just a cost of doing business.

So no watermarks for me.


Posted by: Barbara Snyder on 04/19/2013 - 12:52 PM

I should mention that this is Floyd Snyder of FASGAllery posting under my wife's artist page. For some reason I can not log into my gallery page. I emailed support early this morning and still waiting to hear from them.

Maybe they through be out and didn't bother to even let me know!! lol

Anyone else having login problems? Of course if you see this you are obviously logged in! lol


Posted by: Floyd Snyder on 04/19/2013 - 12:58 PM

Okay... just figured out my account login. Somehow I managed to change the email and didn't realize it.

Sometimes, so dumb!! lol


Posted by: Dan Turner on 04/19/2013 - 1:31 PM

"it can travel and multiply easily and indiscriminately over all entire Internet."

Hopefully! Many artists spend half their waking hours trying to get that to happen.

@ Snyder -- well said!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner Fine Art
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
To Enjoy Dan Turner's Pinterest Boards, Click Here


Posted by: Terri Miller on 05/29/2013 - 8:21 PM

Yes, but if my image travels, I want people to know it's mine! And I DON'T want my image showing up as a Facebook meme with someone else's name plastered on it.

I upload thousands of images each year to my equine photography site, and every single one of them has a watermark on it. I sell a lot of photos. The watermark doesn't slow customers down. In fact it's the opposite, because viewers know where to go to find me.


Posted by: Roy Erickson on 05/29/2013 - 10:00 PM

Whatever floats your boat - I don't watermark mine - no matter how subtle it detracts from the image. That's why all of mine are "signed".


Posted by: Terri Miller on 05/30/2013 - 9:22 AM

All my images are signed as well. But a signature that is the appropriate size for a large painting is invisible on a 600x600 pixel on-line image - and those are the things that wander around the internet as "orphans".


Posted by: Cynthia Decker on 05/30/2013 - 9:49 AM

I "sign" my work. I keep it subtle, but it's there. I've seen it in numerous places, and the signature is always intact. It's a good approach if you just want to be able to prove an image is yours.

If you choose to market on the internet, the only recourse you have is after the fact. The images will get lifted. They get crawled, pinned, right click save as, Tumblrd, reddited... Look at Getty. They get it. They have a huge team of people that do nothing all day but reverse image search everything they offer and send out threatening lawyer letters to people who have violated their copyright.

The only other alternative is to personally watermark everything you upload, with a very intrusive watermark, and then provide unwatermarked product when it's purchased. This limits your opportunity for sales - I don't know of any commercial print on demand sites that will provide a way for you to show one version of an image and sell another. It's a feasible idea, certainly one you could build into your own site.

And in regard to Pinterest and Facebook and Twitter and any other social media site, remember this: If you're not paying for a product, you ARE the product. They're data mining sites. It's what they do. It's not shocking or immoral. IMO, people who think they have some kind of right to keep the information they post there private are fools. Read and understand the TOS. You have to decide if the exposure is worth the risk of Facebook using your image in an advertisement or referencing you in a fake activity feed. (or whatever it is they can actually do) For me, that's a risk I am ok with, as my exposure on these sites has definitely generated sales.

However, for someone who sells stock images, and for whom the use of a 600pixel image constitutes a lost sale, it's a different ball game. Selling web/stock photos on the internet is like trying to keep water in a sieve. You can't. You can only try to put some damage control in place (like Getty) and that's a daunting task.


Posted by: Brenda Jacobs on 06/03/2013 - 6:48 PM

So do most of you folks not have some wort of watermark(of your own, not FAA) for keeps on each image? How does anyone know who the artist is? It's like buying a painting without a signature? I'm surprised there is no option to add one during printing. I know other sites have it. So it looks like if you don't manually do it yourself then it doesn't happen. Not a good selling point when you think about it.

Say someone buys one of your prints and hangs it beautifully in their living room. Some friends come in and love it and say where did you get it, who is the artist? Hmmm...will they remember? I think all artwork should be signed by the artist.

But then as someone said, if you add it yourself in a subtle bottom corner, it may not show up on a gallery wrap.

I just started the free trial and wondering what folks are thinking.


Posted by: JC Findley on 06/03/2013 - 6:54 PM

"So, who is that beautiful piece of art by?"

"I don't remember but I got it on Fine Art America."

"Where was it shot?"

"Oh, I bought it because it is Sandy Point on the Chesapeake Bay"


Search for Sandy Point Chesapeake Bay,

Now, if you are selling a rose image, it might be a good idea to sign it.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 06/03/2013 - 7:00 PM

i lightly sign my name or my face in different images. but it's hard to say if people will know it's mine. though many do know my name. chances are even if the name was very much there and it wasn't cut off by a frame or something, they wouldn't look for it. i don't watermark it because they won't print it if you do. and it would look ugly.

---Mike Savad


This discussion is closed.