A good read indeed
http://terragalleria.com/blog/2012/02/10/why-i-use-watermarks/ - A great read by
4 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 31 previous comments
- Watermarks aren't a matter of "establishment". It's a business practice like putting all your images online without a watermark. It's a preference. Watermarks provide 2 major benefits whether you like them or not.
1. It informs people who is behind the photo. Particularly people that are too lazy to look any other way. In this way it also provides a consistent and fast path for people to track you down for licensing, prints or just to say "cool!"
2. It allows you to more effectively enforce copyright infringement. Whether you chose to or not is up to you, but at least you can with greater success and heavier penalties toward the infringer.
Your write up and are great... two sides of the coin. If it works for you fantastic.Feb 14, 2012
- ... A simple thank you to all of your comments on this post. :D You would be surprised with all that learned and took away from it. Active discussion of two sides of any debate is well spent time. I won't judge any winners from this debate, instead appreciate the openness you all shared. Thank you again!Feb 15, 2012
- I went ahead linked to your post here Carl, a lot of great valuable info for people in the conversation here.Feb 15, 2012
- I have a lens pen and Microsoft photo editor. I'm ready to be "full time"Feb 15, 2012
- After reading this gentlemen, I feel like I watched a 15 round heavyweight boxing match. It was a good clean fight that I judge as a draw :)Feb 15, 2012
- For a while I had some images as CC as well. But whatnor mention is that any CC license is by definition incompatible by licensing RM, as you can never be sure where the image has been used before. It does not matter that it is personal or not, no big company will want to use a popular image that might have been shared dozens of times on blogs that oppose their products etc.
I have some images at Getty (I know, I know), and they and others never accept images that have been CC-d, or at least not in their Rights Managed catalogues for this exact reason. So if you are licensing through any RM agency, you are shooting yourself in the foot as you either won't be able to license an image or you are liable when a buyer discovers that his expensive image is also shared for free (again, it does not matter if it is commercial or not).
And I agree with all of you about the shady borders between NGO's non-profits & non-commercial use. Most blogs that are full of ads call themselves non-commercial. Same for churches that are particularly triggerhappy in breaking their own commandments by stealing my images, which are now copyrighted, all rights reserved, with a special note that in no case (even when licensed) they can be used to promote a single religion or any religion at all.
Sometimes they ask. Like the 'non-commercial' 'human rights' group that wanted to use my image of a girl in Papua for their site. When asked and checked, it appeared that they were christian evangelists/missionaries and the image was going to be used as an example of 'those poor people that need to be converted', disrespecting not only me as a photographer, but the subject and her friends and family as well. Under a CC license the image would have been abused legally.Feb 28, 2012