[kurfsub]

Hello!!

I am planning on building my own online portfolio soon, which mainly contains my digital artwork. I know this may sound a stupid question. But should I watermark my images of my artwork and also how big should the watermark be? I have attached an example but I am wondering if it is too big?

The reason I am thinking of watermarking my artwork images is because I had one of my digital paintings stolen off my deviant art profile along with other members artwork by someone who tried to sell them on a website for thousands of bucks without my permission. Obviously they were found out!! I am also thinking however if I do watermark the image it can't be used if someone decided I like that I'll have it without asking.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Attached File(s)

•  Fierce stunned excitement spin.jpg (5.73MB)
  Number of downloads: 23

[Sogo7]

Yep, it's a tad on the large size.. not the watermark but the image itself.

As a rule of thumb you never put the high resolution image on public dipslay, just a smaller teaser. Keep the larger version behind a password protected/ premium area with a watermark this way you have better control and personal details of any viewer if you took a token credit card payment as well.

Would not put a lot of faith in a visible watermark as a complete anti-theft solution. As an artist well versed in the skills of Photoshop, how long would it take you to remove a similiar overlay from somebody elses work?

Suggest getting slightly technical and delving into the world of 'Stenography' it is posibble to hide text inside an image and it's not overly difficult.
http://www.guidingte...gif-png-images/

[4colourprogress]

I release all my photography work under a CC non-commercial license, even if people do steal them and try to sell prints it just means my work is getting more exposure

http://creativecommons.org/

[Wickham]

Consider a .htaccess file with hot linking protection. It isn't a complete answer but it helps. It will show a substitute image with your appropriate comments like "Don't steal my images" when someone tries to download an image directly or includes the img src="" code in another website instead of giving a hyperlink. See
http://www.javascrip...taccess10.shtml
http://www.renaissan...-to-the-rescue/

I've now got the .htaccess code and the substitute image has been downloaded 1000 times so far this month. Obviously people are still trying to download the nude photo of Brigitte Bardot that I had on my site originally! (I admit I stole that and I've removed it now, but it was the well known photo of her lying on her front on a beach with the waves washing against her. Here it is:-).
http://www.wickham43...gittebardot.jpg

This post has been edited by Wickham: 26 January 2012 - 09:29 AM

[kurfsub]

Wickham, on 26 January 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Consider a .htaccess file with hot linking protection. It isn't a complete answer but it helps. It will show a substitute image with your appropriate comments like "Don't steal my images" when someone tries to download an image directly or includes the img src="" code in another website instead of giving a hyperlink. See
http://www.javascrip...taccess10.shtml
http://www.renaissan...-to-the-rescue/

I've now got the .htaccess code and the substitute image has been downloaded 1000 times so far this month. Obviously people are still trying to download the nude photo of Brigitte Bardot that I had on my site originally! (I admit I stole that and I've removed it now, but it was the well known photo of her lying on her front on a beach with the waves washing against her. Here it is:-).
http://www.wickham43...gittebardot.jpg

Thanks for the advice Wickham. That is a cool idea!!

[kurfsub]

4colourprogress, on 26 January 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

I release all my photography work under a CC non-commercial license, even if people do steal them and try to sell prints it just means my work is getting more exposure

http://creativecommons.org/

Very true!! Worth considering. But aren't you losing out on potential cash. I see what your saying however will have a look at the link. Thanks.

[kurfsub]

Sogo7, on 26 January 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Yep, it's a tad on the large size.. not the watermark but the image itself.

As a rule of thumb you never put the high resolution image on public dipslay, just a smaller teaser. Keep the larger version behind a password protected/ premium area with a watermark this way you have better control and personal details of any viewer if you took a token credit card payment as well.

Would not put a lot of faith in a visible watermark as a complete anti-theft solution. As an artist well versed in the skills of Photoshop, how long would it take you to remove a similiar overlay from somebody elses work?

Suggest getting slightly technical and delving into the world of 'Stenography' it is posibble to hide text inside an image and it's not overly difficult.
http://www.guidingte...gif-png-images/

Thanks for the advice Sogo. Yeah! the image I posted was just an example. When I come to put them on my site. I plan on doing thumbnails that expand when clicked. Yeah! I will make them lo res as well. As a mate of mine tried to print one of them off my facebook page and wondered why it didn't work. And very true with removing the watermark. I did wonder even if the image was flattened can the watermark still be removed.

Will have a go with hiding the text in the image. See how it goes. Thanks

[4colourprogress]

kurfsub, on 26 January 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Very true!! Worth considering. But aren't you losing out on potential cash. I see what your saying however will have a look at the link. Thanks.

I did think about that but at the moment I'm not really making a huge effort to sell my work and landscape photography is a very saturated market so even if someone was able to sell them I doubt they would be making very much money from it lol.

Plus I had to think about exposure vs. being too strict. I gladly let people use my work on blogs and websites as long as they link back to my original image which gives me quite a healthy bit of exposure, If I had watermarks all over my shots then people would loose interest and wouldn't want to put them on their sites so it's swings and roundabouts.

all the best in securing your images though, whatever method you go with.

[kurfsub]

4colourprogress, on 26 January 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

I did think about that but at the moment I'm not really making a huge effort to sell my work and landscape photography is a very saturated market so even if someone was able to sell them I doubt they would be making very much money from it lol.

Plus I had to think about exposure vs. being too strict. I gladly let people use my work on blogs and websites as long as they link back to my original image which gives me quite a healthy bit of exposure, If I had watermarks all over my shots then people would loose interest and wouldn't want to put them on their sites so it's swings and roundabouts.

all the best in securing your images though, whatever method you go with.

Good point!! I was just thinking about the watermark because obviously what happened with the deviant art incident. Even a mate of mine tried to print one of my pieces on the sly. But because I put it at lo res it didn't work Lol! I will probably go with lo res images. But I think your idea is a good one because I need to get this done quick so will be using Dreamweaver. I have had a few mates ask for pieces so I just send them the image(no charge coz their mates) and a printer link. They pay for the print I just ask them to get a label printed on the back acknowledging it's me that created it.

My original idea was for people to look at them then they contact me about using an image. I send them hi res image for a fee. I get credit as well. But your idea maybe the way forward as long as I get an acknowledgement it's my work. All good! It's just some people in this world see something take it then try to make out they did it. Plus as you said people will find the watermark distracting and get annoyed with it.

Cheers.

[Renaissance-Design]

Sogo7, on 26 January 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

delving into the world of 'Stenography'

Steganography. Stenography's shorthand.

[Sogo7]

Renaissance-Design, on 26 January 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Steganography. Stenography's shorthand.

I knew what I meant
must of only been on second coffee when I typed that

[kurfsub]

Sogo7, on 26 January 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I knew what I meant
must of only been on second coffee when I typed that

Lol! I know what you meant no probz.

[kurfsub]

4colourprogress, on 26 January 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

I did think about that but at the moment I'm not really making a huge effort to sell my work and landscape photography is a very saturated market so even if someone was able to sell them I doubt they would be making very much money from it lol.

Plus I had to think about exposure vs. being too strict. I gladly let people use my work on blogs and websites as long as they link back to my original image which gives me quite a healthy bit of exposure, If I had watermarks all over my shots then people would loose interest and wouldn't want to put them on their sites so it's swings and roundabouts.

all the best in securing your images though, whatever method you go with.

Can I ask do you allow for your images to be modified under your Licence by people who use them? I'm thinking it has an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage will be at least I'm liberal with it as long as I'm credited meaning more people may use them as long as I can see what they did with it. The disadvantage being they may change that much it will become something completely different. But if I choose not to allow modification as in text being put on them etc. People will think sod that then. I did have a look at the cc link requested some info which they have sent me. When I saw the modification question made me think hmmm!?

[porkchops]

It might make the most sense to put low res images on your portfolio site... or show only teasers on your public portfolio and collect an e-mail address from prospective clients or employers. Then you can send them a private PDF portfolio with better resolution images. If someone really wants to steal your work they will do so regardless of whether you have a watermark (which they can probably get rid of in Photoshop in a couple minutes) or not.

[kurfsub]

porkchops, on 26 January 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

It might make the most sense to put low res images on your portfolio site... or show only teasers on your public portfolio and collect an e-mail address from prospective clients or employers. Then you can send them a private PDF portfolio with better resolution images. If someone really wants to steal your work they will do so regardless of whether you have a watermark (which they can probably get rid of in Photoshop in a couple minutes) or not.

Yeah! That's what I'm thinking now David. I am contemplating licensing too. But I have my artwork on my facebook page, you can only view them if your friends with me on there at lo res. My mate tried to be sneaky and print one for herself, obviously didn't work lol! So my mates ask me if they can have a print of one of them. So I send them a hi res version of it. for free anyone else would charge. They pay for the print. I just ask them to get a label printed with my name and title to stick on the back of it.

Thanks for the advice.