Hi,

I'm currently building a website for an arts society, and similar to a lot of other art/photo sites with "members" and logins etc. we decided that it should watermark the pictures with the society's watermark when the member uploads their pictures. This is also to protect the society in a way - to show that an effort is being made by the society to protect the members pictures.

One photographer though has raised the issue that on his personal site his photos are watermarked with his own one - therefore if he uploads pictures to the society website, his pictures now exist in two different places with two different watermarks. He is concerned that this may invalidate the copyright effect that his watermark brings.

Uploading his pictures to the society website without a watermark is not really an option because obviously it being an automated CMS it does it automatically.

 

Can anyone give me some pointers here?

Cheers.

Can you not give the uploaders an option to watermark their uploads or not to, therefore photographers who have their own watermark can just upload the image as is

 

Pat

^^^ we did discuss that. However we figured that the watermarks were also for the protection of the society's reputation, if you see what I mean, therefore by making the watermarks compulsory the society couldn't be blamed for leaving the pictures unprotected, if that makes sense. So in other words the society is forcing the issue for the sake of it's own reputation, not so much for the sake of the protection of the artists' pictures.. I guess we figure if the artist doesn't want a watermark, they always have that option on their own personal site...

 

I guess also we are aiming for consistency across the board on the site visually.

 

Do you think this is the wrong way to go?

 

I must admit - this is a tricky little bugger of a problem .

 

Edit : what do places like istockphoto do? Do they offer an option, or is it automatic?

Edited April 12, 201115 yr by Gibson

He is concerned that this may invalidate the copyright effect that his watermark brings.

 

Copyright rests in the act of creation, not the application of the watermark - the watermark is literally there to render the images unusable if stolen. Using the society's watermark has no legal bearing on the copyright or the licence of the images.

 

Further to that, I'd say if he wants to benefit from the society putting his work in front of more eyeballs, it's up to him to supply his images free of his own watermark so the society's software can apply its watermark.

Edited April 12, 201115 yr by Renaissance-Design

 

I must admit - this is a tricky little bugger of a problem .

 

 

Youre not wrong, I guess if the sites watermark was like a stamp in one corner of the image, then it shouldnt interfer with the uploaded watermark.

 

Along with a disclaimer from the site along the lines of: This image has been watermarked by yoursite.com to protect the integrity of the publisher, or similar

Copyright rests in the act of creation, not the application of the watermark - the watermark is literally there to render the images unusable if stolen. Using the society's watermark has no legal bearing on the copyright or the licence of the images.

 

Further to that, I'd say if he wants to benefit from the society putting his work in front of more eyeballs, it's up to him to supply his images free of his own watermark so the society's software can apply its watermark.

 

Renaissance - you've actually made me quite a happy man with this post. It ties in with what I'd figured. Many artists and photgraphers seem to be under the impression that the watermark copyrights their work, whereas it doesn't. The only reason I've put it in is to discourage lifting and protect the society. So basically what I thought was correct - if he gets a different watermark on the society's site it doesn't affect any copyright issues because his original watermark doesn't copyright them in the first place.

 

Bloody know it all photographers the artists themselves are ok, just a bit dizzy and vague, but photographers seem a little more prissy about their work. Of course, I'm tongue in cheek, no offence to any phographers on here.

 

Thanks man, looks like I'll be sticking to my guns on this one.

 

Thanks to you pat24 as well.

 

Anyone else care to comment?