Watermarks – no more

Ever since I started to be more serious about photography I also started using a watermark. This little, white, half transparent representation of my name along with the copyright symbol. Typically I place it in the bottom left and I try to keep it small. After all I need protection, but not distraction. Right?

Wrong, I think today and have stopped all watermarking. I questioned why I started to do it in the first place.

Vanity? Maybe. “Look how good my pictures are all of a sudden”. They now require my very own trademark! My pictures certainly are different – way different – than they have been when I was just shooting without aim, but I am not pursuing a business. I don’t need to help somebody else who’s looking at my work to find his way back to my website. That said: I absolutely respect those that put a watermark on their work for the purpose of marketing their brand and business.

Copy protection? Yes, I thought. But reality is: It doesn’t really work. The watermark can be easily cropped or cloned out if somebody cares to do that.

“You need to protect yourself from theft” friends would say. Theft of what? A picture re-shared on social media without my knowledge or permission? I have to say: I don’t care. Somebody using my picture on a blog? Go right ahead. I don’t really care either. The fact that they find my picture worthy enough to share or to use is some of the greatest reward to me. If I find out about an unauthorized use and they didn’t give me credit (and I find it important enough to care about the credit or a reward) I’ll make myself heard. The act of adding a watermark – I find – is not really a protection there anyway.

Oh, Coca Cola is using it world wide for their ad campaign? Doubtful they would, but also doubtful, that a corporation with its purchasing power (one that would really make a difference on my balance sheet) will steal pictures. After all, the intellectual property law doesn’t require me to have a watermark on my work. The picture is mine, with or without watermark. For those cases that really matter, there is no doubt that I can prove to be the originator of the image.

My information – especially the copyright data –  is embedded in my pictures’ Metadata. Yes, it can be removed in a criminal act that is outlawed in the US by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and beyond by the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Copyright Treaty. Coca Cola won’t mess with it and Jane or Joe Doe are not worth pursuing anyway in general.

The point is, a watermark is distracting. If not at first sight, at some point in time your find yourself staring at it. It wasn’t there when I captured the picture. It shouldn’t be there now. I shoot pictures to enjoy them myself and to learn and advance in an art form of my choosing. And I take joy in others liking my work. Maybe I’ll sell a few pictures, but there is no point in stamping my name onto it. However subtle.

Bottom line, I chose to share my pictures publicly – in a smaller “screen” version at 1024 pixels longest edge maximum. The only way to prevent theft after all, is to not post them in the internet in the first place.

 Disclosure: The feature image of this post is copied without permission somewhere from the intertubes. Hope you don’t mind 🙂