Watermarking Images

[echnidna]

How do I watermark images to help protect copyright.

[BobR]

The watermark is inserted by a piece of software that is normally purchased separately to your image management software. I am not aware of any free software that performs this task. The popular one that works with Photoshop is Digimarc. The watermark management component is under Filters in Photoshop. However, you need to register (read pay dollars) with Digimark to use it.

Bob

[Grunt]

Bob,

You could try this. http://www.hotworldcustoms.com/watermarkingpics.htm

Grunt

[echnidna]

Thanks Grunt looks interesting.

[Honest Gaza]

Without knowing what application you are using.....is it possible to import the final picture into Word. If so, you can create a watermark using "wordart" and then adjusting the contrast of the "wordart" image....leaving your picture in normal contrast.

[Termite]

Word also has a watermark feature, look under Word Help and it will tell you how to do it.

[Sprog]

How do I watermark images to help protect copyright.

Stenography is a topical subject, programs that can hide data in pictures and sound files.

For a demo program go to
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/books/mos2/zebras.html

Also try a Google search for Stenography and Stenography software for more examples

Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLC%2CGGLC%3A1970-01%2CGGLC%3Aen&q=steganography+software)

[echnidna]

Sprog, The stenography approach is unsuitable as I wish to protect online plus hard copy catalogue images.

Termite & Honest Gaza, I use open office so word functions are not practical for me to use.

[jow104]

How do I watermark images to help protect copyright.

Bob how about putting a wet glass down on the picture :D :D :D

[DavidG]

echnidna
What graphics software do you have?

The attached was done in Corel Photo Paint.

Simply Type on the picture, tilt the text and then make it about 25% transparency. ie Nearly see through.
Save it as JPG and use.

Dave..

[Sprog]

echnidna

Simply Type on the picture, tilt the text and then make it about 25% transparency. ie Nearly see through.
Save it as JPG and use.

Dave..

Then someone comes along and removes the additions just as easily :D
Left part of the text there just to demonstrate.

[Grunt]

Gimp from www.gimp.org is a free full featured Image Manipulation program like Photoshop or Photopaint.

[jackruss]

The only way to protect an image from being reused is to make it unusable in the first place.

Most professional photographers just stamp their name and / or website diagonally across the image, this way if it is reused their branding is across the image or make a low res image that is only useable on screen. Even this doesn't work as I have seen many screen res images printed in 4 col and they looked like awful.

Any form of electronic tagging (digimarc et al), within the file data is only useful if someone cares about your copyright.

In the real world, if the image is reused and you don't give permission, there is such a long and expensive process to prove ownship that the only people that make money are the lawyers.

So in a nut shell, you can put copyright lines and data where ever you like , if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but once and image is out there, you are nearly powerless to protect it.

JR

[echnidna]

I realise JR, that Copyright only gives you a stick to wave at a thief.
However without copyright the big corporations would just take what they like.

[Lucas]

I use to shot wedding professionally and it was getting harder and harder to protect your images
at the end of the day if the person wanted the negs because they paid for the shoot they in reality owned the negitives (new copyright laws) government didnt see a wedding photographer as a professional

suppose i dont see them as human

[jow104]

To Jackruss:
quote: So in a nut shell, you can put copyright lines and data where ever you like , if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but once and image is out there, you are nearly powerless to protect it.

I wouldn't try that with Macdonalds though :( :(

[Lucas]

thats about it jow104
but the Mc donalds but is more than a copyright ..... its a registared trade mark and as you can imagine its an international thing
i couldnt reg all my images just cause it would cost a packet
main problem is these days they can make heaps and the fines if they get them at all arent much

i had one of my photographs stolen and used and at the end of the day i couldnt afford to fight it
ok so i "Talked" to the guy about it and he stopped using it but thats why i stopped taking images professionally
now its all just for me

[echnidna]

The way I look at it is that you can never totally stop a fully experienced thief from helping themselves to anything.
But you can make it rather difficult for most of the novices.
I feel low resolution visible watermarked online images are reasonably (though not completely) secure.
Hard copy catalogues can have smaller images with appropriate resolutions that won't blow up well plus visible watermarks.

[jackruss]

Just to clarify a point with regard to copyright on wedding images.

The actual prints that the client receives, the client owns the copyright on these. They can copy them to their heart's content (unless a signed agreement is made taking the client's copyright )

The negs ( or data files , hey we are in the 21st century after all) are owned by the photographer, unless he charged specifically for film, then the client obviously owns the film since they paid for the item.

This is a domestic situation, however the photographer is still being paid so is still a professional photographer, the ruling was made to help both the parties in a retail situation to know where they stand.

In the commercial world, copyright is owned by the author of the image, that means if you don't press the button, you don't own the copyright-make sure you have you assitant sin that agreement.

On a final note, you can easily take ANYONE's image, high or low res, change it by 35% (you gues is as good as mine as how they worked out this figure) and they no longer have any rights to the image - scary eh, but one of the prices we pay for technology.

Protect yourself by just billing this into the job, thats why we charge so much

:-)

JR

[jow104]

Jackruss

QUOTE On a final note, you can easily take ANYONE's image, high or low res, change it by 35% (you gues is as good as mine as how they worked out this figure) and they no longer have any rights to the image - scary eh, but one of the prices we pay for technology.

That comment rings a bell because I think that if you go into a public art gallery(museum) you can find art students making copies or studies of works of art and I think the regulation of 35% sizing applies.

So to echinida,
It might be that copyright on helicopter video pictures could also follow this ruling.

[echnidna]

It might be that copyright on helicopter video pictures could also follow this ruling.

John, I don't think the helicopter video pictures are high enough quality to make large format or panorama prints. But I will have a second look anyway. I need to go up again in an afternoon so the cliff faces aren't shadowed by an easterly sun. But I will clean the chopper windows first so the camera gets clear shots.

[jow104]

Bob don't worry about cleaning the windows, Open the door or take it off :eek:

[echnidna]

Don't think the chopper pilot would be very impressed!!