Watermarking photos - brave new world. (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

Link it!

 

[Cees Alons]

Very nice photo, Patrick!



Cees

 

[Patrick Sun]

Thanks, Cees!

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Link it!

You mean the photo that they watermarked on top of my photo? Okay...


http://marvel.com/images/gallery/gallery/108/marvel_cosplay_costuming/image/872762

 

[Sam Posten]

Yup, that's what I meant. They gave you credit but no link. Lame. Next time I'd insist on at least a link to your gallery.


Great pic BTW!

 

[Sam Posten]

TH weighs in:

http://thomashawk.com/2011/06/on-watermarks-and-signatures.html

 

[Citizen87645]

To be honest I've never thought about the issue one way or the other, but Thomas Hawk's strong feelings on the subject makes me wonder why more photographers don't emulate what's done in the art world? In other words, put an actual stylistic signature on the image rather than the name and copyright notice.


We've come to expect some kind of artist signature on a painting or drawing they've done. Why not a photograph?


But the way I read Hawk's rant also suggests he hates the signatures on a Monet or Picasso. So then what makes a photograph so damn special that it needs to be devoid of such identifying marks?

 

[Sam Posten]

Distribution.

 

[Citizen87645]

Do you mean publication?

 

[Patrick Sun]

I have a hard time signing my artwork. I still haven't settled on a "signature", as I don't like my personal signature (a scrawl only pharmacists can read), and still play around with other forms of "signatures/identifying graphic".

 

[Lee99]

Watermark photos are amazingly nice