Looking for design inspiration?   Browse our curated collections!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Gregory Andrus

9 Years Ago

Do You Use Watermarks When Posting Your Photos To Social Media?

If so, you use .com, like yourwebsitenamewatermark.com to drive people to your site, or do you use another technique to drive people to your website through social media? Thanks, and have a great Friday!

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Dave Bowman

9 Years Ago

I use .com in a corner and semi-opaque so it doesn't detract from the image. Massive crosses and a logo slap bang in the middle don't really do it for me. If someone thinks that somehow prevents image theft though and doesn't turn viewers away that's their choice :)

 

Julie Senf

9 Years Ago

I use a very transparent watermark I created from photoshop with the copyright symbol with my name coming out of it. I don't use the .com because if they are looking at it they are already at my sites. I use those images on my facebook and my Etsy accounts.

If someone wants to steal the pictures bad enough they will be able to do it no matter what I do but I feel that a watermark is another small deterent they have to work around. I state in the descriptions that the watermark will not be on the prints.

 

Heather Applegate

9 Years Ago

I don't use .com
I watermark to advertise and develop name recognition.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

I might consider a small joethephotog.com on my images for posting to social media, maybe even Flickr. That could help with Google searches if someone searches for, say, "Columbia SC" and mine is one that comes up. You can't assume that everyone is looking at your images on the sites you placed them. It would be for branding more than copyright protection.

 

Kathy K McClellan

9 Years Ago

I use a semi-transparent .com tile watermark on a small jpeg for facebook and above the image it says: To view a larger image without the watermark and read a description go to www.keppenart.com

Kathy K. McClellan
KeppenArt.com

 

TL Mair

9 Years Ago

I use the copright symbol with T L Mair after it, and I do it in white, and not transparent at all, I want people to see it.
In the text I generally put either a link to that photo, or directly to my web site, I figure Google will be more apt to find that than a watermark which it can't see anyway.

Terry
tlmair.com

 

Shelby Young

9 Years Ago

I do most of the time. If I am feeling lazy or I dont have the time to re-export my photo with a watermark, then I dont. :) Usually, I try to though.

 

Cynthia Decker

9 Years Ago

I use my signature and make sure the description/comment contains my name and the title of the work. I also keep everything I post to social media under 900px on the longest side.

 

Jessica Jenney

9 Years Ago

Because photos on social media are shared I always put my name on them!

 

Gregory Andrus

9 Years Ago

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I should have said at the top that I was wondering for marketing purposes - It actually didn't occur to me that it *could* protect my image from being stolen too. (Thats how new to all this I am, ha)

ETA: I meant it sincerely, I truly didn't even think about the stealing image part, so no sarcasm detectors needed! :)

 

Xueling Zou

9 Years Ago

Some of images I still use FAA watermark, I should change them, haven''t done yet...

 

Paul Gulliver

9 Years Ago

Yes, I use my web address and my name across the bottom in a contrasting color, not large, but big enough to read

Also in Facebook and Tumblr I put something like "more images on [Subject] in my gallery [link]" to try and encourage them to my site

 

Lois Bryan

9 Years Ago

HECK yeah.

this goes on EVERYthing I post online .. EVERYthing. EVERY EVERY EVERYthing ... even including my own blog!!!!!!!

So if it gets swiped, so does my name and addy!!!!!!!

: ))

andyesI'mparanoid ...

Art Prints

the above looks really nasty, doesn't look quite that bad on images, it's a transparent .png. If you want to know how to make one, I've got a tutorial in my blog, here: Creating a transparent overlay for signatures and watermarks

 

I leave my mark on all the images that are for sale... and even on select images just for the sake of advertising what I do. Shameless! And there are some images where I hide my mark where it won't be readily seen, just in case there is a dispute about who owns the copyrights.

 

Robert Kernodle

9 Years Ago

Watermarks are self-delusions. Why delude myself, therefore?

If you want to capture people, then use engaging verbal content along with visuals. I think that most viewers could care less about watermarks. Like bad bill boards and bad signs, they are waste that give false comforts and false senses of practical worth to the few that produce them.

Harsh, but that's how I feel.

 

Who do you mean by "Those Who Produce Them" Robert? And what does "False sense of Practical worth" mean?

 

Andy Holmes

9 Years Ago

Locking your house or car when you leave it, doesn't guarantee against burglary so is that self delusion too ?

Do you delude yourself Robert, or do you leave the key in the ignition when you park ?

Just as some thieves have the skills to pick complex locks, so others have the skills to clone out watermarks. However many opportunists have the skills for neither, making locks and watermarks a valid deterrent.

 

Thank you Andy. My sentiments exactly

 

Photos By Thom

9 Years Ago

Without exception, every single GD image I post has a profound in yer face watermark...a branding. I downsize no larger than 895 px at the wide end, lower the dpi to web resolution (72 max) and lower the quality to no higher than a 5 in PS.

No doubt, they get swiped. A tiny, low resolution jpg is barely able to print a 4x6 and it's unlikely anyone will bother to clone out my large semi transparent © symbol I use to ruin the image if posted to Google + or my Flickr page

@ Robert K.... your deluding yourself. Me thinks you be missing the point :) The watermark is not about "capturing people". It's about fending them off, and it's about PRIDE. Why not put your name to it?

Attribution is far more important than getting FB "Likes" and "shares" which believe me, won't soon add any income and keep your lights on. Free sharing on social media also is known to cheapen your artwork, period. Pace yourself. Amateurs are SO willing to allow sharing and FREE usage of their works. It's a sign of craving attention at any cost, be it integrity or financial. They would prefer to have 65 likes and 40 re-shares than have a solid lead back to your website to place an order for a 36" print.

 

Bradford Martin

9 Years Ago

I don't use them anywhere. My goal is to attract them in not fend them off. I keep my images under 900 pixels. As for finding me, that's what Google image search is for. Most of the time my name is going to be right next to the image with a link back. A few might wander away but never really lost. I can find them with a Google search and viewers can find me. The main thing is the wow factor. A bit of mystery never hurt anything. A watermark in my opinion is no value added.

 

Jimmie Bartlett

9 Years Ago

Low res photos and watermark all of them. I use the FAA watermark on all uploads here.

 

April Moen

9 Years Ago

Nope. Watermarked images don't get shared as much on social media or on blogs.

 

Cricket Hackmann

9 Years Ago

Everything that I post on social media has my name on it, in one of the corners. So that if someone shares it, or decides to use it for their cover photo, I still get photo credit.

I also (very discreetly) put my name on all of my photos that are printed, and blend it in so that it does not distract at all. This way, if someone years from now sees one of my images in someone's home, they at least have a shot at finding my work online and buying some for themselves! :-)

 

Katie Jeans

9 Years Ago

I use a very transparent watermark of my name across the photo now. At least if someone steals it & blows it up...my name is hidden in it but you will see it if the photo is blown up :)

 

Bradford Martin

9 Years Ago

Imagine if the original Grumpy cat photo was watermarked. It never wold have gone viral. Sure every one abused the copyright. But the owners of the image had a ice business selling t-shirts and merchandise. They ignored the minor uses and kept control of the income producing stuff. Eventually she got a movie deal. Or she could have watermarked and got a few chuckles and shares and never had an infringement, but would have lost out on a million bucks.

No one can "steal" your copyright or "steal" your image. They are making copies, not stealing. Big difference there as you still own your copy and your copyright and the ability to make money.

Cricket, I can take a photo of any picture with a phone camera and locate the owner in 15 seconds, as long as it is posted on the internet. In a few years that will so wide spread that people won't even look at the signature. Just as people use QR readers, image readers will instantly show everything known about an image.
Already I have made sales through that.

 

Robert Kernodle

9 Years Ago

Who do you mean by "Those Who Produce Them" Robert? And what does "False sense of Practical worth" mean?

By "them", I mean watermarks. By "those who produce them", I mean the artists/photographers who produce and apply the watermarks.

"False sense of practical worth" means fooling oneself into believing that the worth of an artwork can be exclusively claimed by the artist, when it is easily within the grasp of the world. Practically anybody can snag an internet image. Such an image, thus, does NOT have the practical self-assigned worth that the artist tries to protect with a watermark that anybody with photo editing software can easily remove, clone out, or otherwise get rid of, for the sake of using the artwork as raw material in a new, transformative creation.

Do you delude yourself Robert, or do you leave the key in the ignition when you park ?

The delusion of relative safety resulting from carrying my car key is a muuuuuch stronger delusion than that of thinking that a watermark will keep people from using my internet images. So, yes, to answer your question, I apply a STRONG delusion to this scenario, which PRACTICALLY has PROVEN to work much of the time. Repeatable results, thus, determine reasonable courses of action. Strong delusions, NOT weak delusions, therefore, shape the world. Watermarks on art are WEAK delusions.

@ Robert K.... your deluding yourself. Me thinks you be missing the point :) The watermark is not about "capturing people". It's about fending them off, and it's about PRIDE. Why not put your name to it?

Yes, I have already admitted this -- I delude myself in STRONG ways. I do not recall ever stating or implying that a watermark has anything to do with "capturing people". In fact, I suggest that it REPULSES many people, and does NOTHING significant to fend them off. And pride is great. Go ahead a sign your works, ... DESCRETELY - I do this. Put your name on it. It's a good finishing touch. But do entertain a WEAK delusion that you are "fending off" anybody who really wants to use it.





 

Andy Holmes

9 Years Ago

"The delusion of relative safety resulting from carrying my car key is a muuuuuch stronger delusion than that of thinking that a watermark will keep people from using my internet images. So, yes, to answer your question, I apply a STRONG delusion to this scenario, which PRACTICALLY has PROVEN to work much of the time. Repeatable results, thus, determine reasonable courses of action. Strong delusions, NOT weak delusions, therefore, shape the world. Watermarks on art are WEAK delusions. "

From my own experience, watermarks have proven to work much of the time, as has locking my house and car. I see no one a stronger or weaker influence than the other.

From a much wider survey, a know cars that have been stolen and watermarked images that have been copied, again giving no stronger belief to one deterrent than the other.

Possibly because you have more experience with image manipulation than carjacking ( I hope), you believe that it is easier to do and therefore produces a lesser deterrent. I know plenty of computer literate drivers who don't steal cars or images, but believe that carjacking is far easier than removing watermarks. It all depends on your personal perspective.

To make a valid comparison, you'd need to take into account the sophistication of the deterrent. A security lock provides better security than a basic multi lever lock, and a comprehensive watermark provides more security than a semi transparent line across the image.
If you try to compare a modern vehicle lock, with the FAA watermark, you're comparing apples and bananas.

 

Robert,

Your view of what others view as self worth is pretty condescending. I do have a certain amount of self value (not worried what you think about me) and my time means a great deal to me. Since I don't have much regard to thieves and fools, yet realize that some may be hell bent on stealing from me, I do what I can to make that task as time consuming as possible anyways. Like an automatic Watermark when uploading, or a website watermark across the bottom of an image in a social media setting.

Go ahead and steal the small screen capture and then take the time to remove the watermark. But you're not getting the key to the front door or the file.

 

Tatiana Iliina

9 Years Ago

yeah it may be a false sense of security - to what extent, I'm not sure. It just seems to me like the ones stealing or otherwising acquiring other peoples' images on the internet are doing so because they are trying to "take shortcuts" (to put it overly nicely). If they have to mess around removing a watermark - when there are millions of images available without watermarks to bother with - that is the total opposite of a shortcut.

I would call it more a reasonable sense of limited security.

 

Tatiana Iliina

9 Years Ago

oh yeah, another thing I often do on social media is post detail images of my paintings - also kind of a partial solution but not foolproof

 

Cascade Colors

9 Years Ago

Yes, I use a watermark on facebook, pinterest, and flickr, with my .com address, semi-transparent through the middle. I have had a few people on flickr complain about it, that it is too unsubtle, but honestly on a site such as flickr, which isn't my main site, I don't really care if people find it annoying; I discovered one of my images being used without my permission on someone elses' website a few years ago, so I now watermark without regret. (And yes, I know that if people really want something they will be able to achieve it)

 

Jodi Bonassi

9 Years Ago

I go back and forth on the watermark as my work is overly detailed and viewers going to my site have complained. And yes, if someone really wants it.... I agree with Robert on this.

 

What exactly did you agree with Jodi?

 

Robert Kernodle

9 Years Ago

From my own experience, watermarks have proven to work much of the time, as has locking my house and car. I see no one a stronger or weaker influence than the other.

Seriously, I do not believe that you really believe this. A locked car is a much more secure entity than a watermarked internet image. Back to delusions.


Robert,

Your view of what others view as self worth is pretty condescending. I do have a certain amount of self worth (not worried what you think about me) and my time means a great deal to me. Since I don't have much regard to thieves and fools, yet realize that some may be hell bent on stealing from me, I do what I can to make that task as time consuming as possible anyways. Like an automatic Watermark when uploading, or a website watermark across the bottom of an image in a social media setting.


How am I condescending? I am not. I do not demean your sense of self worth. I question your faith in watermarks to CONVEY this to viewers, ... to the point that it significantly deters them from using an image however they might wish.

And your talk of thieves and fools seems a bit aimed at me, which is implied name calling. So, if I seem condescending to you, then you seem insulting to me. Furthermore, blanket insistence that all use of another's images is stealing seems shortsighted and OVERLY self-focused.

All images are raw materials for greater transformations. I have painted original paintings using the raw materials of paint and canvas. I have painted dances using the raw materials of my physical body in space and time. I have shot original photographs using the raw materials of undeveloped film in a camera that multiple generations of creative people made possible for me to use in making such two-dimensional transformations of the four-dimensional world. And, yes, I have (and do) use public domain or creative commons images of other creators as raw materials for transformative works, where I add additional creative input that takes quite a bit of time.

 

It seems to me Robert that going back and "editing" your original content about "Those Who Produce Them" and "False Sense of Practical Worth" is somewhat disingenuous.

Disrupts the original flow of the conversation where you threw these things out about others... but thought about it and later went in after the fact and edited the comment after others had responded to it.

As far as my statement goes about thieves and fools Robert, it goes right along with the topic at hand. I regard anyone who practices stealing and thievery to be nothing but a fool. If you practice these things, something of which I have no knowledge (nor have accused you of), then you would fall into the category.

 

Andy Holmes

9 Years Ago

"From my own experience, watermarks have proven to work much of the time, as has locking my house and car. I see no one a stronger or weaker influence than the other.

Seriously, I do not believe that you really believe this. A locked car is a much more secure entity than a watermarked internet image. Back to delusions. "

You didn't really bother to read my post did you ?

You only believe that because you know how to clone an image, but don't know how to jack a car. You're assuming that everyone else has the same skillset as you, but that's not true. A computer illiterate but accomplished lock picker, will tell you with authority that a locked car poses no deterrent, but a watermarked image is protected.

The other dimension you continue to ignore is the complexity of that deterrent. An FAA style watermark is akin to a 60's style car lock which can be easily forced with a large screwdriver. Modern day vehicle locks are far more secure than that, but so are more encompassing watermark schemes.

 

Colin Utz

9 Years Ago

I´ve changed my mind several times over the years, if I should watermark or not. I even wrote a blog post about the topic (http://www.colinutzphotography.com/blog/2014/10/14/watermark-on-photographs-yes-or-no), and changed my mind again. At the moment, I don´t watermark my photographs.

 

Robert Kernodle

9 Years Ago

It seems to me Robert that going back and "editing" your original content about "Those Who Produce Them" and "False Sense of Practical Worth" is somewhat disingenuous.

I EDITED nothing. I answered your SPECIFIC question about my SPECIFIC words, and to do this in language requires using those very words again. Where is the disingenuousness in this - trying to engage in a clear dialogue with you? If I disrupted the flow in SPECALLY answering your question, then perhaps you disrupted it first by asking the question.

The FLOW here involves these very questions and their answers. The flow involves artists creating watermarks. I discussed these items directly, thus, I remain on topic.

I do not use devices that I call "watermarks". I mark my images usually with a discrete signature or, if not a signature, then a font that spells my name. Yeah, I'm proud that I did it. The work itself is my biggest signature, however. My actions are an even bigger signature. A mark is so insignificant by comparison. The universe just does not care one way or the other in the long run.

 

Matthias Hauser

9 Years Ago

On FAA I don't use watermarks, on social media (Facebook, Tsu, G+) I use them. I created a text watermark in lightroom - (c) Matthias Hauser hauserfoto.com - that is applied automatically when I export the pic as JPG.

 

With all due respect Robert... I believe this line was worded differently "If you want to capture people, then use engaging verbal content along with visuals. I think that most viewers could care less about watermarks. Like bad bill boards and bad signs, they are waste that give false comforts and false senses of practical worth to the few that produce them." and was what prompted my earlier questions.

This rewording tamed down the use of the closing line of " Harsh, but that's how I feel"

Perhaps I'm being a bit dyslexic....

 

This discussion is closed.