A Few Reasons Why You May Not Be Selling

Sumit, I know you don't care, but....

Millions of images are sold as "stock" for advertising, wall decor, book covers, greeting cards, posters, etc. and ALL of them have a watermark in the center, usually with lines extending to all corners. Now if watermarks are such a deterrent, why are millions selling to buyers all over the world?

Personally, I think the art itself is what sells, not if it has a watermark or not. I mean think about it, if a customer sees 3 images of what they seek, 2 are so-so w/o a watermark and 1 is a great image with a watermark, do you really think they'd opt for a so-so image just because it doesn't have a watermark? I think not. :)

Perhaps give buyers a bit more credit than lumping them into this fear tactic to stop photogs from watermarking. Each photog needs to make their own mind up to use them or not. I've sold plenty of images with watermarks: on here, another site that has the watermark smack dab in the center and on stock sites (albeit come Dec. none of my work will be on a stock site except my personal sites or lic. pixels). And I'm by no means a great photog!

If you have what they want and it is wonderful art, no watermark will stop them from buying it. The numbers just don't jive between stock and art, one with/one perhaps w/o, which usually have much of the same work on them.

"Prints of Italy Prints of Italy1 Minute Ago
Sumit, I know you don't care, but....

Millions of images are sold as "stock" for advertising, wall decor, book covers, greeting cards, posters, etc. and ALL of them have a watermark in the center,"

Most of those stock photos are sold to commercial enterprises that are in the business to create or use the image for commercial purposes. They are "in" the business. Of course they know the watermark will not come on their image.

But that aside, when billion dollar corporations like Amazon and eBay, people that sell more images in one day then any ten artist will probably sell in a lifetime, tell me that watermarks will hamper sales.... I am going to pay attention.

Then when FAA says the same thing and it is their site... again, I am going to pay attention.

And no one ever said or even suggested that images with watermarks will not sell. They sell every day. What is being said is that a large enough percentage of shoppers don't know and don't ask and they simply do not buy because of it.

You are free to do what ever you want. Which I have also made abundantly clear. And it is absurd to suggest that I or anyone else is using "fear tactic to stop photogs from watermarking". Why would you even make such a dumb statement accusing me or anyone else of doing that? What could possible be the motivation?

You're free to make up our own bottom lines as you wish, Sumit, but I still have to see where Amazon and eBay Amazon are telling us; Watermarks will discourage buyers.

All that Amazon says about watermarks is: If desired, you can watermark an image with copyright information.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search_1-1?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200325990&qid=1409769915&sr=1-1

And eBay says something similar:
http://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/how-to-take-product-photos/ebay-photo-requirements/

From where did you get your information?

Watermarks kill sales. Every stock photographer knows this. It has nothing to do with whether or not people understand that it comes off. If they have to read your note about watermarks you already lost the sale. You are not attracting anyone to buy with a watermark, so why would they even care off it comes if when they print?

staying positive won't make you sales. i was able to call it when it came to my sales. summer did badly, sept 1, sales came in. positivity only goes so far, there is a breaking point in why someone isn't getting sales. they have to figure out that out on their own.

search engine paranoia -- really has nothing to do with the internal search. the one that's here is easy to figure out. google is harder, and everyone uses google.

new people don't matter as much, they are in the back of the search by default. and new people don't mean competition, it really depends what they sell and how good they are.

i've gotten sales from contests, and stirred activity using groups, i suggest using both


---Mike Savad

Well - as far as I can tell - I've not gotten sales from anywhere I've tried - not twitter, Pinterest, groups, contests, email, or handing out 'business cards" - and I guess most certainly not from bots. how did you guess - I've had NO sales.

Sumit - sound advice on a number of counts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Jeff Watts

thing is, it's easy to say - join twitter, get sales. but you can't just follow anyone. you need to follow people that might be best suited for your kind of art. facebook is a bit more dotty on that account since its hard to pick and choose.

for now if you only sell abstract, you should look for places that has a color in their name and follow those. look for yellow follow them, they follow you, #yellow something you have that's yellow. and so on.

---Mike Savad

.......... Watermarks kill sales. Every stock photographer knows this.

LOL, Bradford, sounds like: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance" ........ Everybody knows that.
Makes me smile big time

"but I still have to see where Amazon and eBay Amazon are telling us; Watermarks will discourage buyers."

Ya, and I wish I could find that email eBay sent to us. This was years ago. I had it for a long time but I think it got dumped when I upgraded what ever computer it was on. I have 7 computers in service. I used to have 13 so over the years I have lost several things that I wish I still had.

That is why I bought a huge external drive and back everything up on it now.

I can't believe I am the only one here that was using eBay back when the removed all the watermarks from everyone's images.

Every time eBay does anything that affects your account they go into great detail to explain why. Any one that has ever sold on eBay knows that. One of the problems is eBay is always making changes so you get so many of these email you can't keep track of them after a while.

But I really don't care one way or the other if anyone believes what anyone says about watermarks. I put the information out there. I don't care who does or does not think it is useful. Makes no never mind to me. But to suggest that I or anyone else is trying to use scare tactics suggesting some sort of nefarious motivation, that is just asinine. Pretty laughable actually.

I got a kick out the guy that said that everyone should use watermarks, the bigger the better because that would mean his images without the watermarks would stand a better chance of selling. lol

Watermarks do put off buyers. Some buyers do not realise the watermark is on images. They are not stock image purchasers. They do not know that watermarks are removed, some do not even know what a watermark is. All they know is, there is a huge piece of writing on the image they like. Many people have never shopped online, let alone bought images. We get asked. I worry about the ones that do not bother asking. I have had three new artists just in the past week ask if the images are printed with the watermarks if they put them on. For every person that asks there may be double that or more who just leave your image un-purchased

I really have no qualms in saying not to use watermarks. But, it is your choice entirely and, apart from letting you know, I have no other stake in it.

I know FB works for me on eBay because I can get the information to verify it. I sold a set of Debora Hiatt prints (yesterday) within 24 hours of posting them on FB the day before yesterday.

I am negotiating a sale on a $1900 Martin Grelle, Signed and Numbered, Limited Edition print right now. He only has to get back to me with the frame he wants. I know that came form FB because he sent me an email directly from the link on my FB album that lead him to my eBay listing for the image. Here is how his email started: "Are you the same guy with the Grelle dealer Facebook page?" He is also pretty sure he wants a second Grelle print.

I have a lot of eBay sales like this from FB posting. However, I have zero that I can say with certainty for FAA sales because FAA does not supply that feedback.

"I have had three new artists just in the past week ask if the images are printed with the watermarks if they put them on.'

WOW! That kind of says volumes in itself. If artist themselves do not understand watermarks, how in the world can you possibly think that there are NOT a lot of potential buyers out there that don't.

My first experience with the negativity with watermarks dates back to before computers. (Yes, I am that old)

I was (and still am) a Framehouse Gallery and a Somerset Fine Art dealer. (The two companies merged over 20 years ago.) In those days you did direct mail advertising or other print advertising. The publisher forced you to put a watermark on every printed image you sent out published in the paler. The no longer do that, for the record.

The publishers supplied us with the "one sheets" of the new releases and we would send them out using snail mail. I had a very large mailing list that I mailed to. After every mailing, I would get calls from people that would ask if the watermark in the flyer or brochure I sent them was going to be on the print they would get if they bought one.

I would have people bring the printed materials in and question the watermark. This is watermark problem has been around for years and years. It is not something that just came to be since Internet selling.

Same thing with stealing images. They used to steal images back in "the good'ol days" also. They would get a copy of the print, use a stat camera and print cheap reproductions and use a light table to forge the signatures.

Glad I made you smile Christine. When you do stock long enough and accumulate thousands of sales it is easy to see which files don't sell only because the watermark covered a key feature. If I had the option of taking them off on my stock site I surely would.

Really anyone that has not been asked at least a dozen times if the watermark come off must be hiding in a cave with no communication. Why is this even a discussion? Of course you lose sales. The only real question is how much you mind losing sales vs how much you mind someone swiping your image for a screen saver or using it on a blog where you can then convert that to a sale.

The watermark issue has been debated ad nauseum on this forum and it's time to put it to rest. There are valid arguments both ways. Review them, do what you think is best for YOU, then respect the decisions of those who choose otherwise.

I started out on FAA without watermarks. After carefully weighing the pros and cons I chose to add them to all of my photos, and I'm quite confident that I made the right decision for my situation.

P.S. If anyone wants to know why I chose to use watermarks feel free to inquire through a private message and I'll explain my reasoning.

.

All this chatter is pointless. Rather than continue to pay attention to it, I'm going to test the theory. I'm going to remove all the watermarks, and see if I have any increase in sales. I realize it's not a scientific test, and that many variables factor in; but it will be interesting to see. I'll give it a month.

Is there a way for us to remove our watermarks manually? I tried editing the image and unchecking the watermark, but it didn't go away. Waited 24 hours, cleared my cache and reset my browser, and it was still there. Went into edit image again and the watermark was still checked.

You have to have Abbie do it for you. I guess it is not all that difficult buy she has to do it.

Okay, thanks Floyd. I'll ask her.

There is only one reason. No one wants it :))
April, you can do it manualy. Just go to edit and change image (reupload the same)

Watermarks are put on at upload so you need to reload your images, each one, to be sure of no watermark. And, if you have 200 images this will take awhile... Or just ask and I will do it with my magic button.

Hmmm.... I don't want gas to be over $3 a gallon and want to pay .60 like I did years ago, but that's life. ;)

I believe buyers are more intelligent than they're given credit for here. People don't go to a photogs website or a site to buy art, see a watermark and automatically assume it will be on the art piece they buy. Sure there may be a few who do, but the vast majority don't and they know why the watermarks are up. Unauthorized usage... theft.

If every image of art on the internet was watermarked tomorrow, sales wouldn't end, not by a long shot. I bet Patrick Cariou wishes he had watermarked his images that were stolen by Richard Prince who made around 9 million dollars off of them. At least Cariou would've won his case and got some money by proving Prince illegally removed a watermark.

But as I said, each should make up there own mind to use them or not. Too bad most won't cuz they see things like "Watermarks kill sales".... And the copyright infringement cycle will continue at a more alarming rate... With artists having to spend more time looking for the culprits instead of doing what they love. I already spend more time away from the camera then behind it and don't want to add more work on the computer... But that's how I see it and it's fine with me if you disagree :)

~ Charly

And in the end... nobody knows how the search engine works.

we should have that magic button - like on every other site that has that option.

---Mike Savad

@italy - i can tell you right now that i've seen enough ARTISTS that ask about the watermarks being printed there or not, that i wouldn't put them on mine. because buyers don't ask, they just leave. and even if they know it's not going to be there, its still distracting, and it may make it harder for people to imagine it in their house. they may buy it they may not. if a customer was interested, you just lost a sale. and it DOES NOT deter thieves, not only will they take it, they will remove the mark - it's not hard to do.

stamping fine art america on each image won't help you make sales. and if stolen - it won't help anyone find you again either. but do what you want. i know i look at the ones with a mark on it less, because reading something while looking at the image, does distract me, and it probably does to others as well.

---Mike Savad

Watermark at a minimum shows that you attempted to protect your images rather than just give them away.

I don't leave the front door unlocked and I don't leave the keys in the car when I park downtown. When someone pins on of my images it at least has the watermark to let them know where it is available for purchase.

As I've mentioned before...

I would like to see everyone watermark everything they have for sale!






Except me, that is.



~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

April, Martin... I think if you reuplaod it changes some things you do not want changed. Like any links you have out there will be broken...

Check with Abbie before you do anything....

EDIT: I didn't see that Abbie had already weighed in.

Abbie, I thought I read in another thread that reuploading the images broke the existing links that are out there. I have hundreds if no thousands of them all over the place. I would hate to see them all get broken because of something I did that could have been prevented.

I totally agree with what Bill Swartwout said. lol

The links are only broken if you change the title. You can replace the images. That does not affect links. Use the Edit button and replace the image.

I don't make stuff up. I use my 8 years of selling direct online with a total value of sales over $100,000 to make some intelligent decisions. I have also had images online not directly for sale for almost 20 years getting major sales from them. I have been searching the net for my images with Tineye and Google since they were introduced. I have records of views and sales on my images and I can see which ones don't sell well. I have shown my portfolio directly both with and without watermarks to dozens f not hundreds of intelligent people and listened to their comments. I am involved in every major forum on photography and photography sales for 15 years. I sell on sites that don't even have a watermark option. I shared a bit of my experience and I get blamed for the proliferation of image theft. How many in this conversation are making a substantial portion of there income in online sales of images, be it prints or licensing?

Removing your watermarks is not going to suddenly spur sales unless the watermark was really poorly placed as in the case of some of my better stock images with no sales. Putting a watermark on may discourage some copyright abuse, but won't stop it. The biggest infringement I have had is a Christmas card done where my own watermark was removed and the Christmas greeting is in its place. Not a major loss and not prevented by watermarking.

Bottom line is there are risks and benefits to either way. You have to weigh them all. Maybe saying they kill sales is to strong a wording. If you saw the images that have no sales and the sister images that have lots of sales most would have to say the watermark hurt those images.

Mike I see your work as some of the best on FAA. A watermark on it wouldn't stop me from making a purchase. :)

Most know that the only way to truly protect your work is to not put it up on the net. I know how easily a watermark can be removed, but if someone uses the WM'd image that only makes the case stronger for malicious copyright infringement. There are ways to track down the thieves and technology is getting better to help with that every day.

New artists come along every day. There's no way they can know every thing about the industry, so it's up to those who have been in it longer to help guide them and answer questions. I see it as a disservice to them to make blanketed fear statements such as "Watermarks kills sales". After all they are out to make money, usually in a hurry whether that is reality or not, and they'll be quick to go along with not using them. They should be given all info and then left to make their own mind up. If their work isn't quality, the use of no watermark isn't going to make them sales. Yet many won't know that either…

Most images on the net have the IPTC info stripped, which I'm clueless as to why, since that should always remain with the image no matter what IMHO. So the only chance of an artist being found, via image found on the net, is what exactly? Certainly not IPTC info. The FAA or my copyright info on the image at least gives them a better chance at finding me than nothing does. And I'm fine with making less sales due to my use of watermarks, but as I said, I'm elated with the sales I've had in the short time I've been selling. ;) Especially when I hear, I haven't made a sale in 2 yrs or it took a year to make a sale, etc.

For those who don't use IPTCs (though not sure why everyone wouldn't use them. I'll be doing a blog soon on this topic) they contain: my name, email address, phone #, website, title of image, all copyright info including prohibited usage and more


~ Charly

I agree, Charly.

Some people like red cars, some like blue. We're individuals who get to decide what we want.

"I see it as a disservice to them to make blanketed fear statements such as "Watermarks kills sales". '

I think it is a disservice to them for you to continue to accuse people of using fear tactics by putting out factual information. Especially when YOU are doing the exact same thing!! You are telling people if they don't use watermarks they are going to have their images stolen. Well guess what? You are STILL going to get your images stolen! Read the thread opened this morning: Another Member Has Stolen My Image And Is Selling It Here Also....

The image she is talking about was watermarked!

Watermarks DO KILL sales. You admit it yourself: " And I'm fine with making less sales due to my use of watermarks,"

That is all anyone is trying to say. No one is trying to scare anyone into to doing anything lol

And some of us are not "fine with making less sales due to the use of watermarks".

It almost seems like you are implying that everyone should use watermarks to help police the industry. I think that it is a disservice to suggest that anyone should be willing to "make less sales due to the use of watermarks" just to help you or anyone else protect their images. I don't care if anyone steals your images. I am not willing to lose one dime in sales to help YOU or anyone else protect their images. That is not my job and to imply that new or old artist should be willing to do that is a disservice.

Thank you Bradford. I guess I was thinking that when you upload a new image and then change the setting for the watermark that was the same as making a new upload. My bad.

a mark may not stop you, but it may stop others. i can't take that chance. and it wouldn't stop the theft, so it's really a no win. the only thing i would know is - they stole it from here.

---Mike Savad

There is an opposing opinion on everything on the internet. But this is on the B&H photography site. I trust them to publish well thought out opinions. This is an opinion from an artist who is also a lawyer. I guess B&H is using "fear tactics" also.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/pros-and-cons-watermarks

Forgive me Floyd, but I never said the use of watermarks will absolutely protect your work. On the contrary, I stated the only way to "absolutely" protect your work is never putting it up on the net. ;)

In fact, on my personal websites, I usually don't put watermarks on my work, unless they're connected to an outside source such as FAA. The reason being I have more control over my images, the data within the header/body/footer and can have DMAC monitor everything on the site. I can put them up low res 72ppi, low quality at 65-74 (per export on software) and small files, usually around 600px on long edge; perhaps smaller or larger but never over 800px. Just like on Ansel Adams and David LaChappelle sites that use small images for the most part. But on every site out of my control, like FAA, Etsy, FB I do use watermarks for the most part, which is my choice. :)

As I've said numerous times, it's up to the individual to choose what they think best by making up their own mind. I just wanted to see information given from both sides. So I played "Devil's Advocate" in this thread even though it wasn't popular and ruffled more than a few feathers, cuz I've sold with WMs on here and other sites within 1 to 5 mo. of having accounts. Even selling on the very day an image was added to my account.

Everyone is free to do as they wish! Now the "Devil" will leave to do work that will make me money. ;) Have a great day everyone!

~ Charly

"Forgive me Floyd, but I never said the use of watermarks will absolutely protect your work."

And I (nor did anyone else) never said that not using watermark would prevent all sales but you accused me of implying that. Then you accused me and others of using fear tactics.

I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with me or with anything else you said for the most part. But I do have a problem when you accused me (and others) of using dishonorable (fear) tactic by just putting out factual information.

I agree that we do need to move on... (or Jeff is going to move us on, me thinks! lol)

Great story Bradford! Thanks for sharing it!

Bradford wrote: "Putting a watermark on may discourage some copyright abuse, but won't stop it."

I'd rather stop some of it than none of it. That's why I use watermarks.

Of all the watermarks I've seen on the webernet, FAA's is the nicest looking, most tasteful, and least distracting.

So, what were have going on here is people willing to accept losing money, a real hard money loss to protect themselves from a potential soft money loss that they have no way of knowing that is really happening to any significant degree.

Okay.... go it. I think I'll pass on that. lol

Well, Floyd watermark / not watermark .... both is a potential money loss that none of us has a way of knowing that is really happening to any significant degree.

Please feel free to PROVE me wrong with numbers, because I trust hard numbers over hot air all the time.

Unfortunately, there's no way to document what unseen buyers are thinking, so there's no way to prove anything. What is left is mere opinion, and it's important to remember that opinions are what we form when we don't know or can't know the complete truth.

Since we're all making this decision for ourselves and nobody else, can we please just respect those decisions whichever way they go and stop judging other people's choices?

"...can we please just respect those decisions"

Absolutely concur.

I will say, though, there has been a recent rash of requests from a number of artists to remove all their watermarks. Perhaps they are testing the waters. We comply with their requests immediately.

Bravo James!


Jeffrey, I had all my watermarks removed for a few months when sales got slow and slower, and sales went down rock bottom.
After a few months I asked Abbie to put my watermarks back on again, and sales picked up again.
It doesn't prove anything about the relationship between watermarks on/off and sales.

Christine,

I, personally, agree it does not prove anything.

To add: I have all my work registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. When I am forced to notify infringers' of their potential liability, well, they comply fairly quickly.

i find when i adjust prices i get sales also. i wonder if its just because all the files were, i dunno, tickled? and the server boosted them higher in the search for a little bit of time. its the only thing that kind of makes sense. like to the server they looked like fresh stock or something.


---Mike Savad

Floyd please reread my posts again.... I never said no watermarks would prevent sales ;) I was specifically speaking to the words " Watermarks kill sales", which was address by Bradford stating it was too strong of wording

Yes James Bravo!

Jeffrey, a rash of watermark removals? No surprise here since by definition "Watermarks kill sales" would scare anyone to never use them. It's a shame really, but with experience will come knowledge to make ones own mind up without buying into such statements. :) When I was green, I bought into the no watermarks ever too, but in time decided I didn't agree with that and started using them in certain situations. Like on FAA, Etsy, FB, etc. due to having no control over the sites, where my images may wind up and mostly the dreaded Terms of Service policies with some.

There is so much to learn/decide about as a photog and often it's difficult to discern what is good info and what's not. I decided not to use the US Copyright office, but it's something everyone should check into to see if it's right for them. Some of my work is with them, but now I use DMCA. Using one or the other, or perhaps both, is definitely a good plan though for every photog.

I am also in the process of doing other things on my websites at the moment. This thread got me thinking again about the IPTC info being stripped, and found a way to stop that from happening with WP. Well I think anyways. Gosh never thought at 50+, I'd be delving into code and such when all I wanted to do was be a photographer... Good thing I'm very determined! ;) Albeit bad that I'm too frugal to pay for a website developer. lol

Now I have lots to do to get ready for my photo walk with a well known Travel Photog tonight! WoooHooo cannot wait to pick his brain!!! Have a great day everyone!

~ Charly
Prints of Italy

I fail to see where disagreeing is disrespectful.

Accusing people of trying to use scare tactics.... now that is disrespectful.

Italy, you have already invalidated you own argument when you admitted that you are willing to give up a few sales by using watermarks to protect your copyright. And I certainly respect that as your or anyone else's right to do so.

Those sales are the ones that got "killed" by the watermarks.

Watermarks Do Kill Sales. lol

Spending too much time worrying about protecting from theft that in all likelihood will never happen and has no real money loss will also KILL SALES.

That is time that can be used to create more art and more sales that will have real, hard money, cash value, way beyond what any soft money, hypothetical, unidentified, loss from the theft of a low res image will ever be.

I can see this just going on and on and on...ad nauseum... Let's hear from some different people or close the thread now

As long as this site protects the images from being stolen, I don't think the watermark makes a difference. Your image looks better without it for sure. If someone is going to steal an image with a screenshot, it would not be a good image anyway. Are there other ways that people can steal your image that I'm not aware of? I'm new to this site and am truly interested in hearing from the experienced.