Watermarking on Flickr

Just a quick question..... I'm still quite new to Flickr, what's the general consensus with watermarking images? Is it worth doing or do people not bother?

My pics are rubbish, i would be flattered and very chuffed if someone bothered to steal them
But in some distant far off future or alternate universe where i could take a decent photo, then i think i would watermark my images.

When I saw an image I'd taken displayed on a prominent news site, I started blatant Copyright marking - it will encourage the potential user to get in contact and ask for permission and then you can insist on a credit at least.

If I'd been credited originally, I would not have bothered but as LR makes it so easy to do, it became the rule, not the exception.

Having said all that, BT and I recently parted company after 13 years and my free flickr Pro account went at the same time. I'm now using Smugmug which can watermark for you and also disable right-click actions

I watermark all my images i put on social networks for two reasons.

1. Shameless self promotion
2. If someone does steal my image as happens a lot, then they usually crop it out which increases any potential compensation i sue them for.

watermarking does not stop images being stolen or even helps sell that image...

Thanks for your replies! Most of the images I've got on Flickr I have watermarked but I've also seen a lot that aren't including images from semi professionals so I wasn't sure if I was wasting my time watermarking them! Although I also want to protect them from theft as much as I can! I was also unsure because I noticed Flickr display a copyright symbol and states copyright or all rights reserved next to all the info about the photo with regards to make of camera, lens used and settings etc.

I tend to put a reasonable sized and obvious watermark on my images. In addition, for some, I will put a very small ©2013 Gamka in a couple of extra locations, choosing a colour which blends in with the background and in normally invisible to the naked eye. If they then choose to cut out the main one and in some cases carefully clone it out, they remain.

Thanks for your reply Gamka, that's a really good idea.

My aim this year is to get my photos out there and seen, hence the use of Flickr. It would be really nice if people wanted to use my work for anything and I guess what I'm worried about is would they be discouraged because it has a watermark on it? But then surely it would be good etiquette to ask first so it wouldn't matter if a watermark was there or not (except of course to discourage stealing of images!)

I think maybe I'm thinking about this a little too much!!

It is not always the ones who ask first and get a non-watermarked version, but those who then take it from te site that has paid/permission to use.

I have one image that I took one January evening - by 9:00 I had one request for it, from some one who saw the image on my PC. He has it to use in his advertising - I will get paid next time I am in SA. That evening someone else asked - she too has approval.

However, several copies have been taken from those two and action had to be taken!

I dislike watermarking. I think they really spoil the images.

Kirsty, I've just had a look at your flickr page

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirstyj75/

and most of your pics IMO have been ruined. They're really nice pics too. Such a shame.


I can understand professional photographers who take stock photos for profit as they are creating a commodity and putting them in a catalogue for sale. Watermarking is important then.

But for hobbiest, purely for fun, photographers, if your aim is to get your photos out and to be seen by others then why ruin the experience of those who come across them?


Then don't put them on the Net. Simples

In reality no one is going to mass steal your images, and if someone does decide to nick a couple of them then is it really the end of the world? Why not be flattered they thought it was good enough to steal.

When I see a gallery of images with watermarks splattered all over them it sends out a message to me that the author of those images doesn't really want to share them so as well as the watermark being visually distracting it's also psychologically uncomfortable looking at something that so heavily guarded.

Just my thoughts on the matter of watermarks.

I think Gary's water mark is great. It's more about promotion than image protection, note the consistent size and position of the water mark logo. It's never plastered across the middle of an image!

I don't watermark images as I don't want to clutter them up and spoil them.

My aproach has always been to not put it on the internet at printable quality, 800px on the long side isn't going to print well. But then most of my images aren't very good so.....

Most of my work gets stolen from clients websites, which is dificult to find as the client usually resize in software that doesnt keep the metadata intact to fit their website.

Even uploading at 800px doesnt stop the thieves. One photographer i know had a 500px image stolen and used on a pillow case which where being sold on ebay.

At the moment i would be honoured if someone would steal one of my photos. Be nice to have photos worth stealing

To me it just becomes another income stream...