Oh wow. Stunning replies indeed.
Let's start with Magnum's opinion on the matter. They used to watermark their pictures, they don't any more. By Bob's logic, they must have stopped making a living from their photographs -
Magnum Photos Home
Magnum want are fine if you steal your images. They're in the businaess of sdharing images. You use the image illegally and they have a team of people who'll find them and send you a large, large invoice. So they get their money. Actually they get more than they would have if you had just paid a licence fee.
Gordon, a watermark does detract from looking at an image, and unfortunately to me it signals that the photograph was most likely taken by an amateur, who is more intent on protecting his image, than presenting it well. So in that sense I will continue to judge it and move on to other images that haven't been maligned. If however, it gets you more work, keep at it for sure.
I'd suggest that pros use them first and then amateur's copied the idea later. The good news is that I don't care if some people are offfended.
The purpose of the original post was to point out that watermarks are ugly, and in most instances, an UN-necessary evil. Somehow the entire thread became about theft. I call *cough* bullshit. In my opinion watermarks are at best a work of desperation and at its worst (as Gary points out) acts of unfettered narcissism.
Where do you get off saying it's narcissim? Maybe it's pride. It's a perfectly normal human emotion to have pride in something well done. "I made this image. I'm proud of it. I want to be associated with it". There's nothing wrong with that. In *my* opinion people who don't watermark their work are ashamed of the picture or have something to hide. (No, I don't, but you get the idea, I hope.)
The thinking behind putting up a watermark goes like this -
1. My images are getting stolen
2. I must do something
3. This is something
4. I must do it
No. It goes like this.
1. I have a bike. It's parked in the world biggest bike rack.
2. I don't want my bike used by others without my permission.
3. Theives are more likely to take my bike if it is unlocked.
4. I understand a bike lock wont stop all theives, but it will deter some.
5. I park my bike next to one that is unlocked and I lock my bike.
So when some peadophile is trolling throgh Facebook looking for photos of kids. He'll take yours, not mine because he's probably too lazy to remove watermarks.
Ok, now on to solutions to the problem of theft -
1. STOP uploading print sized images! If your photograph ends up in print without your approval, stop making it available.
That would be great except 90% of images stolen are reused on-line. They don't need print resolution.
2. Use CC licensing to share your images
This will help.
3. Recognize that your images will always get stolen and there's nothing you can do about it WITHOUT DEFILING YOUR IMAGE. Let me re-iterate that. There's... nothing, nada, pfffft, diddly-squat... that you can do about your image getting used on the web. So as Gordon pointed out, ex post facto you can send DMCC take-downs or notices etc, for the images to get taken down. In MOST regions of the world, that will achieve NOTHING. If your image gets hosted on a Chinese server on a Chinese website, best of luck getting a response to your DMCC. So suck it up.
But it will deter theft. Locking your car at the shops doesn't stop theft. It can only deter theft. But you still do it. I'd rather loose my car than have photos of my kids advertising some junk on the net.
Solutions on generating awareness -
1. The idea for this post originated when I came across an article, where a photographer was giving away prints of his work by leaving them hanging on walls in various parts of the city. GIVING AWAY his work to generate awareness about who he was, and the kind of work he did. There are 3.5 trillion (!) pictures that have been taken till date, 380 billion of which were taken last year, so if you have ANY perspective at all, recognize the fact that your image needs ALL THE HELP it can get to make the best possible case for itself out there. A watermark makes your image that bit worse.
I'm not trying to get my work out there. I'm trying to STOP it getting out there. Anyway that doesn't work. An example. Remember the iPhone photo of the plane crash on the Hudson River. You all remember it. Who took that picture? Having your work out there doesn't mean that people will bother to look at who's work it is.
2. Teach! If you actually know how to make an image, share how you did it. In fact, do the exact OPPOSITE of what a watermark sets out to do. Here's a wedding photographer who doesn't watermark his images -
Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller. » "Work is Love Made Visible." --Kahlil Gibran and actually has a 'photographic process' named after him.
Ryan seems like a nice guy and he's chosen his path regarding his files. But that doesn't mean anyone else doesn't have the right to choose a different path. Like I said earlier. If you don't like watermarks, there are plenty without them. If you want to see my stuff without watermarks, tough.
Anyway. These theives are too damn lazy to find an image on the net they could legally use for free. What makes you think they'd actually pick up a camera in the first place.
What needs to be done is a change in attitude toward theft and a very very large stick to back that up. If the US removed the stupid registration laws for images and damages and a law was passed that provided a flat $20,000 (individual) or $100,000 (corporation) fine (half of which was paid to the photographer), then you'd see some change. Then support that by getting some of the micro stock libraries to actually do some advertising and you might stand a chance. What we need is an iTunes for images and a photographic society that chases theives down like the music industry does.
Gordon