In another LL forum string, a couple of members mentioned that the copyright notice / watermark I was using on my website was too large and obtrusive and needed to be moved out of the center of the image to one of the corners. Basically, they said it was so distracting that it made them not want to look at any more photos on my site. Obviously using a watermark that results in this is counterproductive, so I've made three new versions of my watermark and would welcome feedback on them.

Re: the use of a watermark, I've struggled balancing good presentation aesthetics with adequate protection of my images. While using a small watermark in a corner is probably sufficient in most cases, for some photos, due to their composition, I feel that it would be pretty easy for someone to crop out 10-15% of the image to remove the watermark and then use the recropped image. I am significantly less concerned with someone doing this in order to make a print for personal use than to misappropriate an image for commercial use.

Here is the original watermark I've been using throughout my site:

Large and Centered

Here are the new watermarks I've created:

Still Centered, But Smaller and More Transparent

Upper Right Corner

Lower Right Corner

I plan to use one watermark in a single position throughout my site instead of moving it around to different spots depending on the photo's composition (which would be too much work). Any advice re: all of this? Also, if you would recommend a different style watermark than the ones I've created, I would welcome seeing an example and advice on how to create it.

Thank you!

Bill,

I checked out one of those images; the larger version is 1280x1200, very low quality save, corresponding to max. 4.5"x4". Is that a customary size in commercial dealing with landscape shots?

I agree with Gabor: people who are ok with a ~72dpi print are unlikely to be also potential customers for fine art prints. Therefore when someone prints out a photo of yours, it's not a lost sale - but possibly a sale when someone else sees the print and wants a high-res print for themselves.

The watermarks in corner look reasonable to me. If you want to make it visible in both light and dark images, you need to add a stroke or some glow to the watermark, though.

Thanks very much to both of you for your feedback. If we're only talking about 4.5"x4", downloading is not really a concern. Sounds like I should go with a watermark in the corner, keep it small, make it more opaque and add a thicker stroke (the one I used was only 1-2 pts).

But before I make the universal changes to my website, does anyone with experience using a watermark think that I should keep it in the center and just reduce its size and its increase its transparency (or have another suggestion for the watermark)? Thanks.

Bill,

I was one of the original complainers. I haven't yet used a watermark myself, so I'm just giving my opinion as a viewer.
Of your new versions, my preference is for the lower right corner. A bit more opaque and a thicker stroke would keep it from disappearing in images that have lots of detail in that corner.

Do let us know when you have modified your website. I, for one, look forward to having a much better viewing experience.

-Eric M.

unfortunately it is impossible to protect yourself completely. a small © in the lower right corner, or left corner/sides if its too distracting in the BR.

did you know the act of cropping the © notice is a crime in itself...circumnavigating copyright protection measures. it also almost proves they knew what they were doing was wrong and still did it...makes for more $ if it goes to court.

on my site. www.shutterworksphoto.com i keep all my images to 500p on the long side, i have a © warning box on my home page thats a bit detailed but just a few lines and under each image in my portfolio i have © (photog name)

i have seen websites that when you click on the portfolio page it redirects to another full page with © notice info, then it has enter portfolio button on the bottom...very annoying.

a local portrait studio heavily watermarks their proofs. they type over ALL the image, ©(Studio) professional photo, do not copy (and repeats this over), lines of text probably appear 5-8 times on a proof with that phrase repeated.

and i have heard stories of people printing a proof with the proof waterwmark across the center and framing it and putting in in their living room on a coffee table/

In the US you can only claim punitive damages if you have registered the work in question with the copyright office. DMCA circumvention is probably a separate crime or an offense in itself as you imply.

true and i always do. its so damn easy $40 for a years worth of images! from what i understand and i am not a know it all, DMCA is an extension of © law/update for it the new times. and it also includes new penalties.