Comments on: Why Watermark or Brand Your Photos

By: admin

admin — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:55:07 +0000

I use photoshop but there is a way to turn on the watermark feature on Flickr. It’s a great way to streamline branding but I feel it can limit the integrity of the image.

By: Carol Morehead

Carol Morehead — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:30:44 +0000

Hi, Can I do this through flicker or do I have to download a program to my computer? If so what program. Thanks, Sincerely computer clueless, Carol

By: GRTaylor2

GRTaylor2 — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:03:27 +0000

It all depends on your goal for photography. If you are looking to move towards a career I would recommend posting a branded photo to Flickr and posting the links on FaceBook.

Once a photo is uploaded to FB there is no way to edit and add a watermark later.

Thanks for reading and please feel free to ask any questions or share these articles with your Facebook friends. Thx.

By: Hylton Ferreira

Hylton Ferreira — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:21:09 +0000

Thanks Gregory loved this article. I'm new to photography and post photo's on my Facebook page regularly. A friend of mine alerted me to watermarking, so here I am reading your great article on pros and cons of watermarking. I uploaded huge amounts of photos on Facebook without watermarking them. Is there a way to watermark these photo within FB?

By: Sandy Kinderman

Sandy Kinderman — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:05:50 +0000

By far the most concise and up to date information I found on this topic. Sure glad that I navigated to your page by accident. I’ll be subscribing to your feed so that I can get the latest updates. Appreciate all the information here

By: GRTaylor2

GRTaylor2 — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:46:33 +0000

My Flickr photos are almost always creative commons unless they are from a contracted shoot. Whereas the work on my website (www.grtaylor2photo.com) is all rights reserved. (The difference being the resolution of the image files.) Like D’Arcy Norman said in his article, “I have a job that pays the bills…” and I want my art to be seen and crowdsourced for use but I still feel better about having my branding on the photograph to ensure proper attribution as it relates to the creative common guidelines.

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:32 +0000

Thanks for starting the discussion Greg. As someone who takes a lot of photos of her kid, and other people’s kids, it is really important to remember that your unprotected images can be used unless you put the proper restrictions on them.

By: Devon

Devon — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:11:39 +0000

Part of the reason I’d mentioned this topic is because I am conflicted too. See, until the last few months I never got paid for my work. I mostly gave it away. Now, much of my work has been uploaded under creative commons, and the license I use there is that I want attribution, non-commercial, and if you want to download and change the photo, you need to reshare it. For a lot of day to day stuff (like my 365 day work), it’s cool and I don’t care. Like I shot the PF Chang’s the other day, and if I lock down the work with an “All Rights Reserved” then a reporter surfing the web for a photo he/she can use with an article they wrote cannot use it. If I leave it (CC) then they can and link to me. Some ways the photographer can get their name out there more if they’re willing to share. … it’s like drugs. Give some for free, to hook people for more (bad analogy but you get it).

Recently I was reading a blog post by another photographer who talks about the pros of creative commons licensing. And I am posting it here as, in part, the other side of the argument… http://www.darcynorman.net/2007/12/12/on-creative-commons-licensing/

I realize this post of Greg’s here is more about branding, and I get the fact that if I shoot a Sr Portrait gig or get paid by a band to shoot their next show, I sure the hell ain’t throwing those pics out there without licensing them. (Imagine shooting some kid for Xmas pics and his image showing up on some baby mag without Mum knowing).

I use Adobe Bridge, and sure wish it stacked for two copies. As for me, I’d have two copies of the image lying around.

Can’t wait to hear more.

By: Performance Impressions Concert Photography

Performance Impressions Concert Photography — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:04:06 +0000

Great advice! Here is even another reason to watermark your photos, that is because if someone does end up stealing them and they purposely remove the copyright watermark, you may be entitled to recover more damages. That is why you should include copyright information in your watermark and also take the time to register your photos with the Copyright Office.

Here is how I watermark my photos automatically with a free program:

http://www.concertphotos.us/2010/01/how-to-add-watermarks-to-hundreds-of.html

By: Yaggi Photography Kent Wedding Photographers

Yaggi Photography Kent Wedding Photographers — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:46:42 +0000

Thanks for writing on this topic. You and I have recently discussed this and the decision to brand or not to brand is something I still battle. I feel the advertising aspect and photo credit is very important. Protecting a photo from being stolen is virtually impossible unless you only submit images to sites like Smugmug, which protect the images.
Great read and I will most likely continue to brand my images in the future.