Question: The right balance between the esthetics of the photograph and marking its ownership?

[Asher Kelman]

I am impressed by the diversity of photographers' marking of their territory. Lions and dogs urinate on the perimeter of their hunting ground to warn competing hunters of their intention to fight for their exclusive rights to exploit this area.

• Some photographer's add a large logo on a corner.
  
  
  
  
  
  © Frank Doorhoff, Model Floor from "Something RED Something BLACK", in OPF, here
  
  Of course, Franks beautiful log can be cropped or cloned out. However, it provides clear professional and low key notice that would have standing in any court, that the picture is the private property of the photographer. It also does have the value of advertising. It gently associates the Frank Doorhoff's name with this gorgeous picture of his featured model, Floor. While the "mark" is clear and well-defined, it also is pleasing and even adds balance to the picture!
  
  
• Others put a large watermark across the center of the image: works but often degrades the picture. I myself have done this but on rare occasion. This series is a clear and even egregious example!
  
  
  
  
  © Asher Kelman from "Victoria in Shadows", previously shown in a series, here
  
  
  The sign does detract, but the essence of the design was still obvious. Such a central "mark" is added to emphasize, don't even think of using this in any way! This is often used in stock photography. There the letters are much broader typeface and much lighter.
  
  
• Some have a sign that dominates the picture and is bolder as is the very first thing to stand out. Poor idea, IMHO, and is then becoming de facto gross advertising for a name, log or website
  
  
  
• Others use a subtle text that does not detract from the photograph.
  
  
  
  
  
  © Asher Kelman 2009 Lilly at Dusk Do not copy, edit or download (from the original OPF thread here)
  
  
  

In each case, the mark can be edited out. Having the sign dominant at the periphery is little different than having it low key as far as preventing it from being edited out. What one really needs to do under current law to prevent folk claiming your picture is an "orphan" is to show that a search could find that image or that every effort was made to "mark" that image, like they animals do in the wild, but without the odor!

How do you think this boldness/subtlety issue should be balanced? Link examples to illustrate your view and arguments.

Asher

Adding ©, use, licensing and contact info in the IPTC file attached to your picture, is however a must and does not need to be discussed here.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

How do you think this boldness/subtlety issue should be balanced?

As with many other matters, we must recognize that there are different objectives being pursued by marking on an image. The criteria that affect execution vary with the actual objective.

Here are two to illustrate the point:

A. Advising the viewer of the ownership of rights in the image (lest the viewer somehow think it is in the public domain).

B. Expressing pride in the creation (a "promotional" implication).

Objective A can be accomplished by a fairly subtle marking (for which read "small", "dim". etc) - hopefully not so subtle that only the viewer who has been alerted will find it.

While a "neat" graphic design may be appropriate here (just on overall aesthetic grounds), this is not a big challenge. But legibility is pivotal.

Objective B is something like the sign on a restaurant. It has implications far beyond identifying the building.

Here, prominence is a basic issue, and matters of graphic design loom large.

My own thought is that, in this arena, fulfillment of objective A is always appropriate; fulfillment of objective B less so.

Here is what I consider a perfectly sufficient fulfillment of objective A:



Best regards,

Doug

[Kathy Rappaport]

I had my first wedding stolen from the internet and it resulted in no after sales and a lost friendship. I did not watermark the images. That was a good lesson for me.

Now, I have a semi transparent watermarked logo that I place on the bottom of most of my images - except when they are posted here. Mostly because, Asher, you request it. I have greatly reduced the number of images I post anywhere now unless they are thumbnails or unless they have a fairly large watermark.

Maybe a bigger difference to me is that I am working hard at making images that sell - doing portrait and event work. People do not understand that these images are the inventory on my shelves for sale. Just like going to the local Department Store, I have to put those security tags on my merchandise. I have too much invested to give my product away.

[Asher Kelman]

Kathy,

Your marking of pictures for legal protection is done in the IPTC file attached to the image. Your logo can be cloned out. The best thing to do is follow what Frank Doorhoff does. His logo is beautiful, clear and adds balance to the picture. It serves as a warning on ownership and a great advertisement.

The key is to post picture in size and quality just sufficient to show off your work well but such that printing would yield an inferior and unsatisfactory copy for your customers and clients. Also you would only post a fraction of your inventory just enough to make people come to you for business.

When you have the balance of beauty, clarity and subtle display that Frank uses, one is winning on all counts. He is not BTW, posting inventory. When I do that, I'm prepared to sue.

Asher

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Of the examples you showed, I like the best yours on Lily at Dusk.

On another issue (related to my other thread today), the phrase "do not download" in your "caption/notice" is not workable - if someone is viewing this image in a browser, they have already downloaded it.

Best regards,

Doug

[Charles L Webster]

I use a small size copyright notice in the lower corner of pictures posted on the web and in my portfolio book. On the web they function as a notice that they are copyrighted but in my book they serve the additional function of providing a clue as to the portrait or landscape orientation of the photo.

Since many of my pictures are semi-abstract, it is often not completely obvious which way they should be viewed, and after watching people look at my book, I realized that they needed a clue to see the picture as I intended.

Proof prints delivered to customers have copyright notices, files and full-size prints do not.

[Kathy Rappaport]

The IPTC is great and serves it's purpose in the commercial world but it means nothing to the Iphone generation - most people do not understand copyright and care less about violating the copyright of the average photographer.

[Bill Miller]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Kathy,

Your marking of pictures for legal protection is done in the IPTC file attached to the image. Your logo can be cloned out. The best thing to do is follow what Frank Doorhoff does. His logo is beautiful, clear and adds balance to the picture. It serves as a warning on ownership and a great advertisement.

The key is to post picture in size and quality just sufficient to show off your work well but such that printing would yield an inferior and unsatisfactory copy for your customers and clients. Also you would only post a fraction of your inventory just enough to make people come to you for business.

When you have the balance of beauty, clarity and subtle display that Frank uses, one is winning on all counts. He is not BTW, posting inventory. When I do that, I'm prepared to sue.

Asher

Asher, As Kathy stated, a person will steal the photo and print it on their own. Placing a Copyright in the IPTC is ok and suggested. However, it will only keep the honest- honest. If a person wants to steal or use a image the IPTC means nothing to them, plus it can be removed.

My opinion is this, posting of images on the web (other then a portfolio) is either advertising for the Pro or "show and tell" for the amateur. There are many amateurs who do not sell their images so copying means nothing to them. Just look at it this way, the web and forums have become the camera clubs of old.

You mention Frank's logo placement. That can be easily removed, he is interested in promoting Frank, not selling the photo. That is t by his (giving away) selling of a A4 size print for 7.50Euro less the $10 USD.

If you remember (I know thats hard for you, at your age) after a photo shoot the Photographer gave you a set of proofs. Across the print was the word "PROOF". This was to keep the customer from having a good image to copy. The same is true today.

[Doug Kerr]

If I had an image that I thought was of substantial commercial value (for whatever reason), and whose value would be degraded if it were "pirated", or which I thought might greatly enrich a commercial operator who might pirate it, I wouldn't post it on any publicly-accessible Internet site. Period.

But I'm not really worried about my shot of the Haleakalā crater showing up on the cover of "See Hawaii - 7 days for $500.00".

This whole discussion is a little bit like "what kind of marks should I make on my 1955 T-bird to protect it while it is parked on the street near the airport for two weeks."

Best regards,

Doug

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr

If I had an image that I thought was of substantial commercial value (for whatever reason), and whose value would be degraded if it were "pirated", or which I thought might greatly enrich a commercial operator who might pirate it, I wouldn't post it on any publicly-accessible Internet site. Period.

But I'm not really worried about my shot of the Haleakalā crater showing up on the cover of "See Hawaii - 7 days for $500.00".

Doug,

There was one law case I read of where a photographer's friend recognized a photo on a food product in a supermarket and congratulated the guy. Well, that was the first he knew about it! It was a great thing to have been ripped off! There was a huge cash settlement which included penalties since the original on the web had been marked and the © info was in the IPTC file. That's once instance when this is all so important.


Kathy,

In your case, the idea is merely to promote yourself and share your work by showing representatives of your finest work, (not all of it, LOL). knowing that some foolish clients still try to make a print from that small jpg 7 compressed file or by scanning the 8x10 print.

Front Loading: The way around that is, of course, as you already do, to have the shoot "front-loaded". That means one must get a substantial fee in advance and if they somehow want copy the one 8x10 they purchased, at least one has the profit already in the bank.

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

If someone want to steal an image, he will. Removing the embbed © is easy or only takes time when it's centered. Removing © from IPTC is easy too! So, we only have to warn (by embbeding sig and © in IPTC) that the user will use the pic at his risks.

I do shoot product. (yes boats are also a "product"!). My clients beyond many uses do post my shots on their website on both public sites and media (restricted access) sites. All my images have both IPTC and © marks embedded. I grant the rights for my customers for a period of time; press use, adverts, all marketing needs. These grants includes their dealers network. BUT exclude the end-users (boat owners).

Because most of them are chartering their boat or are charter companies, hence they use my pics for commercial purpose. My clients do not wish to pay for the rights for that and I understand it, but what a mess to let the end users pay for the use!

So nonetheless I need to publicly show my pics on my website (there is an alpha layer to prevent downloading them) to advertise for myself, but my clients do because this is one of their marketing tools. The only real solution is to educate people. I may admit that I am not very optimistic on that… {:-(

[Mike Bailey]

One of the points of obviously placing a copyright notice on and in a photograph - at least in the United States - and also actually registering the photograph with the U. S. Copyright Office is that if the image is stolen and/or used without permission as defined by the U.S. Copyright laws, the photograph will have much greater rights in suing the thief for punitive damages. This goes far beyond collecting what the charge would be for fair use of the stolen photograph. As such it puts more teeth in the protection.

As soon as a photograph is displayed in a public place, which includes online, it's considered published, and can be registered for a fee with the U.S. Copyright Office, either individually or as a part of a group (collection). This can be done by sending the fee and a CD of the images to the U.S. Copyright Office. This past year the copyright office has been moving toward doing all of this electronically.

My knowledge is only of the U.S. Copyright Office, but I'd assume most other countries have similiar methods for registering copyrights and similar punitive laws for violation of copyright, along with agreeing to international copyright laws.

Mike

[Ken Tanaka]

If you eat off your images don't put commercially valuable samples on the Internet. Period. If you just want to share your images with a nameless, faceless public then just put it out there and be happy. Nobody's making millions from it.

The overwhelming majority of images that we see (and post) have no value to the public. People often "steal" images for comical or personal illustrative purposes. As noted earlier, many of these people --young and old-- have no sense that they're stealing anything. After all, isn't everything on the Internet free?! If you believe that it's a useful life mission to "educate the public" more power to you. (I doubt that your obit will appear in the New York Times as "copyright educator".)

If you eat off your images don't put commercially valuable samples on the Internet. Period.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka

If you eat off your images don't put commercially valuable samples on the Internet. Period.

Ken,

Re read Nicolas' post. He does need to show such pictures! That's, in part, how new clients are attracted. Also some end users still need to get pictures of a boat directly from him.

Event shooters, as another example, also often need to do the same. That's, how the folk get to choose the pictures to purchase. These very people are the most likely to take the pictures! Some wedding photographers are moving to giving slide shows almost immediately after the shoot to get the orders in. Still front loading the payments is increasingly important to such photographers.

The point you make, "if you eat off your images..." is valid to the extent that one should balance one's need to show one's work and the total number of the valuable images displayed. For an event, all the worthwhile pictures do generally need to be shown. For artistic work some image may need to be shown. That does provide bread on the table for a whole chain of folk: the gallery owner, printer and photographer.

The double edged sword of the internet helps the photographer but as you point out, don't put your most important valuable work there unless that's a critical part of your thought out plan.

If a picture works as a panorama, presenting it as a small image say 800 to 1400 pixels wide and then the larger image via Zoomify or some other viewer does help keep some control.

Asher