This article is also interesting about copyright watermarking.

By offering licensing to use the image, or making the image for sale in the form of a print on your website, you are evidencing actual financial value to the image on the site – and to any reproduction made by the image. This will, in the least, provide you with an argument against a proposed fair use defense that an infringer may have.

http://www.photosandthelaw.com/2009/07/14/the-internet-as-a-double-edged-sword/

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...

I'm not aware if there have been actual cases around the world where it has been tried, but I would imagine if you have the camera original full sized jpeg, and they have a lower resolution web copy, that could be sufficient. Also you may have other similar shots taken at the same time which you did not post.

Then again, if someone steals your whole hard disk, bets are off. While I'm at it, do people here upload full resolution images to storage or hosting sites? Even if you don't expose the full resolution and allow the site to provide smaller output, a hack attack might expose those. So for me, I rarely post anything other than a medium resolution image unless it is specifically a test shot.

And as a side note, there is one other category which I don't think has been covered so far. It isn't direct theft of the image itself but it could still be used as a reference image by other forms of artist. I have one photo of a crow landing side on to camera, showing its wings nicely. This seems popular as a visual reference for painters (traditional or digital) and I get the occasional request for permission to use it as a reference, which I've not declined to date. I did get an anonymous tip off that there was one case of unauthorised use, and sure enough there was an obvious copy. I made contact and things were settled quickly and nicely. All I ask for is a reference credit so it isn't as if the bar is set high... for a more high profile example of this case, there was the Obama photo used as a painting reference I think that ended up in the courts. I'm not aware how that one ended.

THE PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME... Stop nit picking.... YOU did know what I meant...And so did everyone else.

The principle is not the same. Please ask any music publisher if digital music is the same as music on analogue media. Seems to me that they are suffering the difference, since now anyone can download music for free. Likewise digital video and film and, yes, photography.

The fact that an artist can choose to make 100 copies of their own work is in no way the same as the fact that someone who steals their work can make one million copies. I continue to be amazed you haven't noticed the difference. And how can this complete difference in kind be called "nit picking"? It is the very essence of the problem.

I've used services like dotphoto where you post a picture for web viewing and if someone wants to use it they can buy the full size tiff version.  Dotphoto will automatically puts a (c) logo across the picture, but I disable that because it's annoying and could detract from my sales.  It's personal preference in the end.  The watermark does little to protect your file beyond what it is already entitled to by the law.  I like what M5 does because its used more about self promotion rather than to deter someone from using the image illegally. Realistically, the only way you can find out if someone is using your photo illegally is if you catch them, and then its a simple matter of proving that you are the original photographer.  I'm sure if you went to court with the full size file and said see I am the owner, you would win the case with or without a watermark on the image.  The issue then becomes is your image considered 'fair use'.

Courts accept RAW files as evidence

i watermark, but i call it cheap advertising.  i have had pics stolen, really i don't care who uses what, just give me credit as the photographer. most people aren't making money off the pic but using it on a website or blog post.

i guess keeping the photo size small and the dpi low might help, but once it's uploaded to the internet, it's a wrap. consider it unprotected.

I do not watermark.

I use flickr as my hosting site, but not as a "hey check me out I have a million views" social.  The images that are my most prized to me, I keep private.  My public images are mostly tests, FS items and my cats.

Funny, my most viewed image on flickr is that of a Rokinon Mirror lens mounted to my Canon 1DMKII...not exactly Earnst Haas material!


Jason C