Do Watermarkes Really Effect Sales?

How would one know? I sell with watermarks. What I do know is it makes it more difficult to steal and it keeps a breadcrumb for people to trace it back to this site.

there is no way to know, but i think they are ugly and many think (including other artists), that they print on there. i think they look ugly and don't help anyone find me later on. and its not much protection, it can be removed fast enough.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I also lock the house when I leave in the morning.

In most cases I'd guess it not the watermark that is holding back sales.

Yes. I would definitely say they do affect sales.

I get a surprising number of questions about the watermark by people who think they are printed on the work and want it removed. Or by people asking if it is n the print.

If they are asking then how many are not and are moving on

If the buyer purchase a print, there is no watermark.

Yes Randy but, unfortunately, a lot of people do not realise that

They may have a small impact on sales, but I think the impact is often exaggerated on this forum. I put a note on every gallery and image description saying they won't appear on prints, and people seem to get the message.

I also think the impact of watermarks may be over estimated. The way I see it, buyers fall into three groups:

1. They know the watermark doesn't print on the final image (no problem with these.)

2. They think the watermark might print and don't want it or are unsure, so they ask. I would think once they found out the answer, these folks would not be a problem either.

3. They see the watermark, think it will print, don't want it, and go elsewhere (or to another artist.) Is there any real data on this group? I'm sure there are some buyers in this group, but I wouldn't think its a large impact. Maybe a few percent, not 20% or some large number.

Just my thoughts...

High Resolution preview displays a watermark! Should we not use this feature?

In the case of photographic art I don't think it affects it any more than a ruddy great signature in the corner. Personally, I find that much more off putting.

;D

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

I am still amazed how many idiots don't understand watermarks and printing, but I havr taken them off, because I'm fine with anyone's money, idiots or people who understand the 21st century.

That some people don't understand that the watermark isn't printed, isn't helped by the fact that the the notice advising potential buyers, is only displayed once a product is selected, and even then it's greyed out and small.

This notice needs to appear on the page where the thumbnail is initially selected and be more prominent. Abbie stated that this suggestion had been passed onto the coders. I wonder if there is any movement on this ?

Jenifer,

Any water mark system can be beat.

That said at least for now i am adding a digimarc. The membership costs $99 for the year.
It really is not worth it. The company does scans for works, but it barely digs into all the images
across the internet that it is supposed to scan for every year. And that is only for online images.

I go through the process of officially registering my art works with copyright.gov site. Is it worth it?

I have a few reasons for doing it. It is practical for me, because I dont have many images. Is it worth it?

I hope so. But for most artists it really does not matter. Works are copyrighted when made automatically regardless of paying
copyright.gov.

Dave

I agree James!!

Not sure how much it affects sales but I watermark mine and they still sell.

When I do a Google search for my work it's amazing how many of my images I find stolen with an FAA watermark. There are also plenty who try to crop it off but you can still see a bit of it. While there's a lot of intentional thievery I think a lot of it is people who don't know any better and think all images on the internet are free and "public domain".

And then there's the debate about if watermarks are even effective to prevent theft which people tend to have strong opinions on both sides.

So the choice is to risk losing sales with a watermark or risk having large copies (1000px+) of your work easily copied and redistributed without your identity on them. Maybe you can also lose sales from someone using an unwatermarked stolen image and printing a 4x6 or 8x12 instead of buying one from you.

I watermark my stuff. It's really only a deterrent but I prefer to have one over nothing.

ETA: I also sell digital downloads through other places so a watermark somewhat helps to see who are thieves vs customers. If I only sold prints I'm not sure if I'd use a watermark. If I found someone using my images I'd automatically know they were stolen.

Picture stolen from the internet = no direct financial loss!

Picture not bought, because customer doesn´t know that the watermark doesn´t show in final print = financial loss!

Ah, the monthly watermark debate…..

OK, here are some numbers. I took a random survey of 1000 images on FAA. About 30% are watermarked. I tracked 1000 sales that I reviewed in QA and about 10% had watermarks. Now, if watermarks had no affect those numbers should be approximately equal. The stats show a couple things here. 1. You CAN sell with watermarks. 2. You can sell better without them.

Now, go find a Getty image. It shouldn’t be hard as the have 39 thousand of them. You will note they do NOT have watermarks. Here is a company whose primary business is selling image rights. If you go to Getty’s site they are ALL watermarked. The difference is in the market. Stock buyers understand that the watermark will not appear on the image. Art buyers may not.

In an ironic twist one gorilla seller that specializes in government PD images does watermark their work here. 27 thousand plus images that are in the public domain and can be downloaded full res from the gubment site are watermarked. I find that somewhat ironic.

It is really a personal choice though. Does it bother you and keep you awake at night if a blogger uses your low res image? Then watermark. Does it keep you awake at night thinking you might have lost a sale because of the watermark? Then don’t.

I don’t use them and here is why. Yes, I have an image that is on some 300 websites without authorization or compensation. Heck, a company in Iran uses it on a site saying they can get a US Visa. Try sending a DMCA in Farci…… Anyway, in all likelyhood people that take things from the net aren’t going to buy anyway so really I have lost no real money. But if one, just one buyer decides not to buy a 48 inch print because there is a watermark I lose 400 bucks. That is real money. How often does that happen, who knows but I am not going to take the chance that I lose real money to protect images from people that wouldn’t have bought anyway.

Disagree Colin.

If you sell digital downloads and someone decides to steal your image instead of paying for it that's a financial loss.

And again, 1000px is the size Google images displays FAA images where people can easily copy them and bypass the FAA security. That's big enough to upsize to make prints from so that's a financial loss if someone steals an FAA image and prints it instead of buying it from an FAA member.

Loss of a 10 inch sale, 30 bucks. Loss of a 48 inch sale. 400.

Disagree Paul. 😎

It´s no financial loss, because this person would have NEVER bought the image.

Some month ago I wrote a post about watermarks on my blog. As you can read there, I´ve changed my mind several times over the years (http://www.colinutzphotography.com/blog/2014/10/14/watermark-on-photographs-yes-or-no).

That´s my opinion, only. And maybe I´ll change it again, sometimes. I´d never say "Don´t watermark!" or "Do watermark!".

Regarding JC's comment "Anyway, in all likelyhood people that take things from the net aren’t going to buy anyway so really I have lost no real money". By law it's theft and it's illegal. If I go steal a camera from the electronics store I don't think the police or store are going to accept "Well I wasn't going to buy it anyway so it's okay to steal it."

Regarding Getty, they have tracking software to bulk identify infringers who they then send invoices to. They also recently launched a free embed feature but this comes with a lot of use restrictions and Getty gets valuable usage data.

@ JC "Loss of a 10 inch sale, 30 bucks. Loss of a 48 inch sale. 400". How many 10 inch sales do you do vs a 48? So a loss of a dozen 10 inch sales equals a 48.

@ Colin, let me know if you ever need to sell some camera equipment. I'm not planning on paying for it but sure would like to have it. ;-)

Time to get back to making images.

I will tell you right now 90% of my income here is from 24 inch and larger prints.

If someone steals a camera you cannot sell it anymore. If someone takes a 900 pixel image, I can and do still sell it. Big difference there.

Paul, I totally understand your standpoint.

It´s not nice, that people take our pictures, and use it without paying. But there is a difference between stealing a real object I´ve payed money for, and I have to pay money again to replace it, and a digital file. As I said, it´s not nice, and legally it´s theft, but I´ve lost no money, and the file is still there.

Colin Utz
www.colinutzphotography.com

Google show 900px images from faa...same ones as are on the image pages. We do not have 1000px images available for Google

A person looking to break into a car jiggles the handle. If its locked they move on to the next one. They don't bother with the hassle when they can find an easy target.

"They don't bother with the hassle when they can find an easy target."

But if they want exactly that car?

I don't put the FAA watermark on my shots because if I even think about having to put a disclaimer in the caption that it won't appear on the printed product, then I figure it's not worth my time. Clarence listed three types of reactions to watermarks including this one --

2. They think the watermark might print and don't want it or are unsure, so they ask. I would think once they found out the answer, these folks would not be a problem either.

But there's also a 2a. They think the watermark might print and don't want it or are unsure, so they don't ask and find work by someone else without a watermark.

I've thought about watermarking my Flickr images, but like Mike, I think watermarks are ugly and detract from the overall image.

Why risk it? With todays tech they are nearly useless to prevent theft!

""They don't bother with the hassle when they can find an easy target."

But if they want exactly that car?"

I don't think that anybody is claiming that watermarks completely eliminate the risk of theft, but neither does a car lock either.

Does that mean that locking your car or house when you leave it is futile, because it doesn't guarantee 100% security ?

People comparing the theft of an image on the web to breaking into a house, a car or stealing a camera are missing the point by a little. Of course you lock doors and keep valuables hidden in cars! But if you decide to sell the car, house or the camera, you also clean it up and get it looking good, right? In my mind, not having a watermark is helping the sale like washing and waxing a car you're trying to sell.

they might affect sales - but I seriously doubt they will effect sales - if they did (by being there) would use them. there is a disclaimer from FAA that they don't help sales - when it asks if you want a watermark or not.

You don't need a watermark, a watermark is nothing more than a polite notice letting potential thieves know that it is your image. Image theft happens regardless of watermarks. Watermarks do not prevent theft. I search periodically for my images, if I find one being used without consent I contact the individual and politely explain that the image is mine and they should delete it or pay. Unless your lucky enough to have a big company steal your image you'll be fighting in civil court which is most of the time more trouble than its worth. Watermarks do not equal image ownership, Exif data proving you took the image is your copyright which is why you should always back up your files just in case

I have watermarks on my photos at Etsy - over 4 years I continue to sell there (even though it is not really a very good place for photography). No one has ever asked about watermarks, and there, people contact you directly about buying your items.

I have NO watermarks on anything on FAA - in 2 years, I've sold 1 card here (a terrific place for photography).

I don't think I can draw any conclusions about watermarks from that whatsoever.

So I'm with those who think you should go with whatever you take away from discussions like this and do what you think is better.

I don't put FAA watermarks on anything.When I post my images online I always put my name on them. Many of my images come from the 500px site with my name on them.

" But if you decide to sell the car, house or the camera, you also clean it up and get it looking good, right? In my mind, not having a watermark is helping the sale like washing and waxing a car you're trying to sell."

You might polish it up, but you wouldn't leave it parked in the road, with the keys in the ignition so that prospective buyers can test drive it, would you ?

Don't you think that having to come and find you, maybe call you and wait until you're home, and ask to open up the car for inspection, might be a deterrent to a sale ?

I think if we really want to compare to another theft it might be better compared to a turnstile jumper on a subway. Yes, they are jumping over without paying and riding the train for free. It is theft. They are NOT however stealing the train where you can't make money off of it in the future.

I suppose you could make it impossible to jump the turnstile and stop those "thefts" but if you went too far some of your daily riders might stop riding too. If that happened you have accomplished your goal of stopping some people riding the train for free BUT you have also decreased your overall revenue because of the people that would have paid decided to just take a different route.

OK JC, so if we go with that, the practical solution isn't to remove the turnstile completely, using the justification that some people will still jump it.

Nobody is saying that a subway system has to be 100% foolproof to create an effective deterrent. Or for a car, or a house.

Naw, the watermark isn't like a turnstile. That would be your check out. The watermark is more like a conductor walking through checking receipts.

"What if they want that exact car" - I don't think your average image thief is too picky. They basically want your images to post on Z or CP on some product that doesn't need a high rez image.

Bottom line is do what you want. Just don't complain later when you find your images orphaned all over the place.

And conversely don't post a why am i not selling thread if you use them.

"I suppose you could make it impossible to jump the turnstile and stop those "thefts" "

How would a conductor manage that ?

"And conversely don't post a why am i not selling thread if you use them."

Until the site explains the use and limitations of watermarks to potential buyers, as efficiently as possible, it's impossible to know whether it is in fact the watermark itself, that's responsible.

He doesn't, just like watermarks don't prevent theft. The conductor would be a deterrent to the theft like the watermark here. That is fine until it starts costing you revenue passengers. When that happens you are preventing thefts that really cost you nothing anyway and losing money from people that were willing to pay.

When it comes down to it, watermarks do prevent some sales just as they prevent some thefts.

The question the op has to ask is which concerns her most?

I think we know how most that answered feel one way or the other.

As JC mentioned earlier,

'Ah, the monthly watermark debate….. '

Well this time around, I, for one, am finally convinced the watermarks are more of a hindrance than a help. Mine are now gone, thanks to Admin, for removing them for me. It actually feels good too. Free at last, to have gotten away from that debating society in my head ~ !

Folks, some of you should know this. The act of removing a watermark is a crime under the dmca...the fines start in the the thousands whether or not the image has been registered with the copyright office...so yes, it does make financial sense to have them on your images. Maybe not on FAA, but I watermark anything I post online..my watermarks are the transparent variety, not the solid color variety.

Abbey says she gets a lot of people asking if the watermark gets printed and my theory is that unlike watermarks on other sites that cover the whole image, the FAA watermark is in the bottom right corner where an artist would normally sign the work. That also makes it very easy to clone out on a lot of images.

Here's a real world example of how watermarks can help.

I currently have this photo available on FAA, and used to offer it on Shutterpoint.



A few days ago I found the Shutterpoint version had been lifted more than two years ago and posted on an internet forum http://hypebeast.com/forums/off-topic/211366

As you can see the poster/thief left the watermark intact and everyone who sees that forum will see where the photo really came from. Watermarks CAN help!

"And conversely don't post a why am i not selling thread if you use them."

Watermarks are the last reason someone might not be selling. I would put the following above watermarks:

1. Quality
2. Wide appeal
3. Subject
4. Promotion/marketing
5. Keywording/Discription

etc etc. Watermark is low on the list as people sell everyday who use watermarks.

I actually got Digimarc on special late last year for $79.

I am going to drop Digimarc. It is an almost invisible watermark. It might add
a slight darkness to the image. Barely noticeable.

It does not deter theft. Why would it? Do I need to go around explaining images
have barely visible watermarks? No. Waste of money. I was newer to this business.

People might remember that if an image is stolen and reposted, you have free advertising.

In my case without the watermark, I need people to see my type of work as "the usual thing you
buy for your home". Just like abstract art now is the usual thing you buy for your home. Of course
in the late 1940s no one thought putting splat on a canvas in their home was a good idea. Now most
do.

So stealing is not a bad thing necessarily. Buying is better. JC's advise is right 2/3 of the time concerning
watermarks. I think I am using Bayesian statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

"degrees of belief"

You know copyright does not mean that if I post an image here no one can see it. I want thousands of people
to see my work. What is the difference between seeing the work on the web or having it hang in your home? The artist
needs people to see the work either way.

Mike talks about not posting the image on Twitter, so the potential customer has to click on the link to see the image.

Jenny Rainbow talks about showing the image and then underneath or on a second tweet adding a bunch of hashtags so the
search engine sees the image for future parties.

I need my images to be accepted socially as what is hung in the home or office. I get very high RT levels when people see
my images on Twitter. So you can tell where I am going.

Show your images folks. That does not mean sales. But window shopping leads to sales.

Dave

Edward

Watermarks are the last reason someone might not be selling. I would put the following above watermarks: 

1. Quality 
2. Wide appeal 
3. Subject 
4. Promotion/marketing 
5. Keywording/Discription 

etc etc. Watermark is low on the list as people sell everyday who use watermarks.

You are spot on of course but my counter claim was an equally dramatic statement to yours. The fact is people that use watermarks also have their images stolen and even altered and orphaned everyday as well.

Again, watermarking prevents some thefts but it also prevents some sales. The artist has to choose which concerns them more.

Hello Jenifer Madsen,

I do not use watermarks on my work for fear of my work getting a fuzzy look. With a watermark, your work is more safe and people can't steal it, but a watermark makes your work look fuzzy. I don't know what a watermarked artwork looks like, though; I never watermark my work. I think it is really an artist's personal choice. Decide what you think is best. Note--you can always change your work if you don't like the look of it with a watermark.

Alexandra Herr

in any case - a watermark will never encourage a sale. and only serve as a distraction uglifying a piece. you can't have your own name so if its stolen, they will only know to come here and that's all.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Watermarks make artwork look fuzzy? Not in my experience. Can you cite an example, Alexandra?