There are two distinct camps in this debate, those who are pro-watermarking and those who are against watermarking their work. In this article I thought I bring up both sides arguments to help you decide whether or not watermarking your work is something for you, as well as my own point-of-view in this seemingly eternal debate.

Signature vs. Watermark

Because there is quite a bit of a mis-conception around the watermark, where it is constantly compared with how a painter or other artist signs their work, I feel it only necessary, we start with a quick overview, because I want to get this clear, your watermark is not your signature.

Signature

For some reason, many have gotten it into their heads that artists signs their work for either promotion and/or protection of their art piece. This is not the case at all. Artists, including photographers, sign their work to validate its authenticity, as a proof it is indeed their work. When as photographers, we sign our prints it is an actual signature not some computer generated graphic. The signature, usually small and preferably in pencil or archival ink, is placed in the lower right-hand side in the margin of the paper, not on-top of the actual image itself, as this would distract from the viewing experience.

In addition to this a signed piece of art or a photographic print have greater value than a non-signed piece. As the artist becomes more famous their signed pieces increase in value.

Watermark

This is in stark contrast to that of the digital watermark. The digital watermark first emerged during the advent of the digital age as a measure to combat the rampant use of images being taken off the internet and used without the consent from the artist in question, and since it is a digital watermark it can be reproduced with ease, thus doing nothing to prove the authenticity of the work you are viewing is truly that of the artist in question, nor does it anything to make the work more valuable because it can be mass-reproduced. The same is true of a printed signature.

With that in-mind, who actually took the photo below, me or my friend Alex? Did one of us steal the other’s photo and put our watermark on it? You won’t know unless you check the EXIF data.

Two sides of the coin

There are always two sides to a story and the watermark debate is no different. The two main arguments for a watermark on your images is, one, to protect it from being misused, the second for marketing your brand.

Protection

Let’s start by looking at what protection the watermark can provide us with and how effective it really is. In today’s modern society the short answer is that, it does very little if anything at all to prevent anyone stealing your images. Many know how to remove unwanted areas of an image, such as a watermark, there is even mobile phone apps that does this for you. Literary anyone can do it!

That being said it may act as a deterrent for some people that would otherwise use an image unlawfully for personal or commercial use. However, photographers have had their work stolen, their watermark removed, and the image used in books, online and offline advertisements and even on commercial products. Basically, if someone really wants your image they will find a way to remove the watermark.

There are even instance where people have stolen images of other photographers, removed their watermark and added their own to pass the work off as their’s.

The issue lies in where the watermark is placed, usually towards the edges of the image because we do not want to take away from the viewing experience. Normally it’s also very small and we have it blend with the image in general, which makes it easier to remove, so not much of a protection.

To make the watermark into an actual protection for your work you will have to plaster it allover your image, and while this is a great protection, especially when sending out proof copies to clients, it doesn’t look good on your final images.

Graphical watermark

Text watermark

Full watermark

A watermark doesn’t automatically tell you if your image is being infringed upon, you still rely on someone contacting you about it, unless you discover it yourself. If you have no watermark and not yet famous perhaps only your close group of followers will know it is your work.

Marketing

From a marketing perspective there are two main arguments for the watermark, these tend to be; promoting your brand and making it easy for potential clients to find you.

PROMOTING YOUR BRAND

Yes, having a watermark on your images can be a good thing for promoting yourself as a photographer, I am just not sure how effective it is. I have heard both success stories and the opposite. I also know that publications such as magazines, blogs and more won’t even use your image if it has a watermark on it. In this scenario your watermark is more used as a lead generation tool, meaning that if they truly want to use your image they will contact you to license a watermark free version, (assuming they don’t remove your watermark).

FINDING YOU

The second argument is that it makes it easier to find your business and website. But think of where you normally publish your work.

I am guessing you have either a personal or business like social media page, and perhaps you are using photo sharing sites as well as you own site if you have one. In all those instances your work is being displayed under your profile, that also have the ability to link back to your website and vice versa and include your contact details. Outside of that, you should ensure to be credited appropriately for work you do.

A watermark from these two perspectives I guess would be effective if, your image has been stolen and is being unlawfully used by someone that didn’t bother to remove it in the first place. The question is then how much impact does your photo have in the context of where it is being used. Is it the only photo being displayed or just one of many, does it stand out against the rest so it would actually generate any leads?

Graphical watermark

Text watermark

I recently had an image stolen from me and it has not generated any additional leads or work, even though I was credited by the infringer with my copyright information, including a link back to my 500px profile where they stole it from in the first place, as if that somehow would justify their theft. In that case it was one of many in a massive site.

So what should you do?

On the one hand you don’t want to detract or destroy the actual image’s viewing experience, while at the same time you may wish to protect it and market yourself. So here are some questions/guidelines to think about and weigh the possible pros and cons of a watermark knowing what you now know.

Why do you want to watermark?

Ask yourself why you are considering watermarking your photos. Is it because you want to deter people from stealing, advertising yourself or your brand? As a means to ‘sign’ you work?

Impact on the viewing experience?

No matter if it is for protection or marketing purposes, you want your work to speak for itself and not your watermark. A poorly designed watermark, or the best designed watermark in the history of watermarks, can still destroy an image’s viewing experience and deter potential clients for considering you in the first place.

Because of this, we try to get it not to distract from the viewing experience as much as possible, but at some point we must ask ourselves; when does it stop being an effective marketing tool as well as theft protection, and if so, are there then any reason to have a watermark?

Professionalism?

While many professionals watermark their images there are just as many that do not. Looking professional have anything to do with your watermark, it is how you present yourself and your work, if your work looks amateur a professional looking watermark won’t help you, however a professional looking work can easily be destroyed by a poor watermark.

Impact of getting an image stolen?

You should always be prepared that someone knowingly or unknowingly uses your images without your permission. You never know where your work will end up legitimately or illegitimately, do you want to be associated via your watermark with potential elements you do not want to endorse?

If you have no real reason behind your watermarking such as, it looks cool or just because others do it I should do it, then it is completely unnecessary to watermark your images.

Alternatives to watermarking

So what if you feel that watermarking isn’t for you, it doesn’t provide sufficient protection, promotion and it ruins the viewing experience to much. What alternatives do you have?

EXIF data

In the settings menu of your camera you can set copyright information that is embedded into the file at capture. I highly recommend setting this in-camera so it becomes tattooed to the file. Nikon cameras allows to set both Artist and Copyright information. It even stays when uploading to Facebook which otherwise removes all other metadata.

It also has the added benefit if someone steals your camera and there is a quarrel over who actually owns the camera, you can guide law-enforcement thought the menu to review this information and there shouldn’t be any question of who actually owns it.

Social Media

When sharing on social media ensure you use your own channel, business or brand page, whenever someone shares or re-share your work it still shows where it originally came from. If you write a guest article somewhere ensure you are credited properly along with a link back to your own website or social media channel. You should also ensure all your contact details or a link to your website exist on your social media pages.

When posting images to your social media channels, rather than posting the actual image, you can make a post that links back to that image on your own website where you have more control in how you protect it.

Lower resolution

You can attempt to use low screen resolution images, however photography is a visual medium and we want to show our photos as large as we possibly can, using a lower screen resolution can have an adverse effect.

Also consider using a lower print resolution, this makes it harder for someone to use your image in print. While it has no effect when viewed on-screen it will print very poorly unless the person has the means to enlarge the image for print.

Search for infringements

A simple Google image search will reveal if your work is being infringed upon or not, even if it has been slightly modified. If Google image search is not your thing, there are other options available.

Pixsy (free & paid)
TinEye.com (free & paid)
ImageRaider (free & paid)
Digimarc (paid)

Use margins

The takeaway

Personally I do not watermark my images, I feel that even the best designed watermarks detract too much from the work itself.

Instead I use only specific outlets for my work which are select social networks and photo sharing sites as well as my own website. I link back to my website from the social networks and vice versa. Shares and re-shares from my business and brand pages links back to the original post, and that I am credited properly outside of that, so from a marketing perspective I feel I’ve cover myself that way.

From a protection perspective, I only watermark proof copies I hand to clients and it wouldn’t be professional of me to ask them to keep my watermark on the final product. In the end they are advertising their own product or message, not my photography, and asking clients to keep your watermark on the final product will likely deter the client from working with you. If someone really likes the image, they are likely to ask the client who took it and I will get a referral that way.

But that is my reasoning, your’s may be different. There is no right or wrong, it is up to you to decide what you feel is more important when it comes to your work.

Where do you stand on the watermarking debate?
Until next time, join in the conversation with your point of view.

blog

Should you or should you not watermark your photos?