Regarding Watermarks

Thought I'd share this with you since these days I see watermarks everywhere. This is just a reaction to that in hopes to lighten my views about it. These blog entries kinda talk about it... but I have a bit more to say.

http://photodoto.com/photo-watermark-ideas/

http://www.whoahgirl.com/2010/05/11/h...otography/

It's important to note your context of showing your picture. As a designer, I watermark designs I send to my clients. I also watermark things I sell. I personally think watermarks should be designed to be used in the right context, it should be given some consideration and thought of who you're showing your work to. This is important. At some point watermarks will start to invade the work itself and art is a visual message. Watermarks get in the way of the correct interpretation of that message.

Now, we can have a major debate about how we should watermark our images. What should we do and so on. Personally, I leave conversations open. As an artist, I want to display that openness by providing minimum watermarking on my work, merely a creative signature in my case. I have confidence in people, the internet, and trust them. Of course, there's a lot of malicious people out there. But since I've been doing my work commercially, I can proudly say I don't have huge number of incidents of people just blatantly calling my stuff theirs. Permission is another interesting thing. I get reports from various individuals regarding people reusing my work without permission. Unless I allow that, I typically try to derive a nice win-win situation for both parties. Arrangements are typically met and I typically profit.

That's just my experience.

So you can get a bit creative with watermarks you know?
http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-...termarking

Some closing thoughts: Watermarking and signing your name is is an art of its own. You can't be too polite, but you can't be too protective. You gotta leave breathing room for people who legitimately want to see stuff. Watermarking professionally will benefit anybody, and for me, I've benefited a lot from being professional and creative with it. Watermarks and signatures must respect the viewer and must be reasonable. The picture below shows you what kind of message I get when I see giant watermarks attempting to protect a picture.

Like I say, I just wanted to share a bit of my thoughts and opinions about watermarks and signatures. Generally, I respect people's thoughts about how they should protect their images, but I think there's an "ugly" or "professional" side to all of this debate. There is, however, no right or wrong with watermarks. It is merely about designing your signature to suit the needs of you, others, and the environment in which you're presenting your work. The point being that this is about design, it's a subjective discussion. I'm merely stating my strong-held opinion over these years of actively pursing my carrier as an artist.

I'll rewrite this as a formal blog article if I can get some constructive thoughts from others. With love, honesty, and otherwise. Just my thoughts. Thanks for reading.

You have a point, Skybase. That third link is interesting, the one where the watermarks are warped into perspective and blended in like they're a part of the original work.

Betis that is too cool.

BTW, I made a filter that removes a top layer from the rest of the image (only for "normal" blend mode, though). If provided with a transparent watermark, the filter can remove it. Of course I don't do this illegally, it's just proof of concept.

Since the time I began doing more commercial art, I've just become extremely aware of the self-image or how I look like to other people as much as I'm quite myself. Watermarks, signatures, and anything you do to your image to protect it from others is part of your brand, your self image, and a reflection of what you think.

But most people don't talk too deeply about that. You'll see tutorials on how to watermark an image, maybe a blog article discussing what ugly watermarks look like, but little do people actually discuss the implications of what a watermark means or what it intends to accomplish, as much as how it subjectively changes our interpretation of what we're looking at.

I've seen many people become too concerned with protecting their image, so much so that they ruin it. They throw up a image with a really obnoxious watermark. They scream THIS IS MY WORK! Copyright 2013. Legal Notice: You aren't allowed to use this image without MY PERMISSION. And at that point I start thinking, "Yeah yeah ok shut up I get it." And I don't even intend on taking it personally. But you can see how simply I can change my mind on a work by somebody simply because the artist chooses to protect it so much against the rest of the world. As much as I respect the idea to protect an image, I can't respect being overly protective about something.

You gotta let go some portion of you when you present "art" to the rest of the world as much as it is a balancing act to protect it. Learning to do that is part of what branding is about.

If I were a professional artist or photographer I would be extremely angry to see other people claiming that my creation was theirs. I would be very annoyed if they even just used my image in some context without giving me credit. (The same holds true if I were a Filter Forge filter developer!!!)

I don't think that plastering a prominent watermark across an image is an effective solution to this problem however. In fact, I believe that copyright theft is one of the unpleasant yet unavoidable facts of life in the digital world. Everyone who creates digital content (artists, photographers, software developers, musicians, filmmakers, etc. etc.) has the same problem. For some reason, people who wouldn't think of stealing things in a shop have no reservations about stealing someone else's work online. And though there have been many attempts to make it more difficult for the thieves, thievery still abounds. In the case of image watermarking, the watermarked image loses quality for honest viewers while a determined thief can remove the watermark with minimal effort.

I know there are invisible digital watermarking solutions e.g. by Digimarc, so if I were a professional digital photographer or artist I would look into them to see if they would be effective. Then I would hope that some big corporation would steal my image so I could sue them.

I do love the idea of semi-hiding the watermark in the image itself as described in the creative watermarking article. Also, a visible but not prominently placed watermark (i.e. not plastered across the whole photo) can help viewers who like the artist's work to find more fr om him/her and hopefully generate business for the artist.

Edit: By the way, to give credit where credit is due, I believe I heard prominent photographer Scott Kelby make that comment about hoping a big corporation would steal his image on one of the video episodes of The Grid.

I totally agree with you Skybase. It really amazes me to see images being completely destroyed by watermarking being used in the wrong way. That watermark is about you and your work. Your brand as you said. It's not just about protecting you, it represents you. So design and proper placement so it's not so intrusive is important. Great thread!

I like it! It's part of the whole that way. I think watermarking should be thought of as an art in it's self.