Do you do things like watermark them, or make them as unusable to possible thieves as you can?

I've seen people go to what I think are ridiculous lengths to ensure that nobody steals their photos. Personally I don't care if people steal mine as I know they aren't the most likely to be stolen either way.

So what do you do with your photos? Do you not care? Or do you really care?

I don't watermark any of mine. As a generalisation, I don't post high res output on the net (typical up to 1280 or less) so the loss potential is low anyway. Anything below that will be of limited use, and I don't mind "personal use" if someone really wants to. I do tend to leave exif intact, but I know that is easy to change so nothing strong in itself.

It does annoy me when some people think so highly of themselves they put a big intrusive watermark over the image, ruining anything they might have done as I stop looking at that point. Not saying you shouldn't, but at least do it in a low intrusive way e.g. by making it lower opactity so it is still visible but not so that it is all you can see.

Not a watermark over the image and as already said, it destroys the whole point of posting really. If it needs to be that highly watermarked, and protected, then don't post it on the net. I like a signature in either corner of a shot, but just one depending on the image. Its nice to know real names sometimes and that can help out there.

Just my opinion anyway and I would like to see more people do it that way to be honest.

Danny.

Well, I put a watermark on my images and challenge the rabid anti-watermark folk here to tell me exactly how it destroys the image. The bulk of the surface is untouched -- it is no more distracting than everything else on the screen around the image.

Without a copyright I have absolutely no protection. That is the law. And, yes, I have had my images used without permission. Most of the time I give them away anyway, or kindly ask for a donation. but I have also properly licensed images for books, promotional material, websites, etc.

So many people do not understand that it is important to credit the photographer. So I put the credit directly on the image.

Back when all I took were snapshots things were different. But after investing so much into this activity, it would be nice to make enough back to at least pay the costs. The only way to do that is to a) disseminate my images so people can see them, b) tell people who made the image.

If anyone here can think of another way to accomplish this I am all ears.

You don't have to put a watermark or (c) on your photo to have it copyrighted.  It is automatic since the Berne Convention.  If anything the "artist" style signature is probably best to give you some advertising credit.

http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-copyright.html

Well I'm a webmaster of a website (see below) where I make use of a lot of pictures. The only way to protect them from theft is by watermarking them. Constantly websites are stealing them or hotlinking it.
I only watermark the original, not the thumbnails.
I think it is sad, but I have no other choice.

You don't have to put a watermark or (c) on your photo to have it copyrighted.  It is automatic since the Berne Convention.  If anything the "artist" style signature is probably best to give you some advertising credit.

http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-copyright.html

That article is misleading. If it were true no works would bear copyright notices and yet they all do. Who is correct -- all the large software and publishing companies with their teams of lawyers? Or that author?

The truth is that works do gain copyright on creation. But in a court of law, you will have to prove that you did due diligence to protect your work. The minimum required is to state your copyright. Making a deposit of the item in a shared public and reputed third-party repository is also helpful.

Quote from: count_zero on June 14, 2011, 12:20:46 AM

You don't have to put a watermark or (c) on your photo to have it copyrighted.  It is automatic since the Berne Convention.  If anything the "artist" style signature is probably best to give you some advertising credit.

http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-copyright.html

That article is misleading. If it were true no works would bear copyright notices and yet they all do. Who is correct -- all the large software and publishing companies with their teams of lawyers? Or that author?

The truth is that works do gain copyright on creation. But in a court of law, you will have to prove that you did due diligence to protect your work. The minimum required is to state your copyright. Making a deposit of the item in a shared public and reputed third-party repository is also helpful.

Who has the money, time and mood to go to court, suing a website located in some far away country ?

you don't see painters writing their name across the face of the painting... And, anyone could cut off the trim on a canvas also... same thing.

Yes yes yes!, cut Pablo's signature and mark those cubistic drawings with my own! (j/k)

Heh, this is kind of funny...I could care less if people stole my photos. I suppose it's because I don't think I'm that great of a photographer though.

Plus, putting a water mark takes away from the image... you don't see painters writing their name across the face of the painting... And, anyone could cut off the trim on a canvas also... same thing.

You're saying a painting -- of which there is only one unique copy in canvas and paint -- is the same thing as a digital photo which can be freely replicated? Where have you been hiding this last century? 

Quote from: voyager on June 14, 2011, 07:26:00 AM

Heh, this is kind of funny...I could care less if people stole my photos. I suppose it's because I don't think I'm that great of a photographer though.

You might think differently if it affected your reputation and that of your family. I will give no personal examples but this family photo was used without permission:
http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture/

The easier one can prove copyright the easier it would be to go for damages, if one wanted to. It is not hard to find a lawyer to so something like this on spec for a percentage, since most cases settle out of court for a fee. No need to travel to the Czech Republic!

Good example, makes you think.

It helps to read the entire article as well.

That said, there is an advantage to filing for copyright. If a dispute arises, you can get punitive damages (in addition to compensatory damages) if a form was filed before infringement.

In the stolen picture webpage example, if it is in fact real, she could sue not because the image was supposedly copyrighted, but rather they used her image without permission.  She can sue for Appropriation.

http://www.photosandthelaw.com/tag/photography-law/

The difficulty is proving that the image was used for financial gain.  Who is to prevent someone from stealing an image, then cloning away the copyright watermark and replace it with their own?  Can you prove in a court of law that you took the real image?  Probably, if you have the original RAW file, maybe even a TIFF, but not likely with JPEGs or PNGs etc...