Thanks Chazz, I appreciate your insight. I guess I'll just let it go.Lightroom or Photoshop can both be set to add one on save/export. There were a few hosting sites that could do this too, but it's becoming less and less popular.
That said, I wouldn't recommend it. The reason it's become unpopular is it's kind of like gun control...watermarking only punishes legitimate viewers. Photo thieves will take them watermarked or not. Quite frankly, going after them is more effort (and cost) than it's worth, unless that's just something you enjoy spending your time doing.
Personally, I really HATE watermark photos. I see many great photos RUINED by cheesy watermarks.
Interestingly, there's been a lot of photos/photographers that I would have LOVED to share on our social media channels over the years but their screwy looking watermarks just kill it for me. I hate seeing a nice photo just to notice it's been defiled.
We always give credit where credit is due. If everyone just did that simple thing there'd be no need for watermarks.
.02
If it's a pro photographer trying to sell the picture (desert racing photo guys come to mind), I can understand the watermark, if it's a trip report on a forum, not so much.
I've also had photography stolen and used for commercial purposes, sometimes an email with the US Copyright certificate number and an explaination will fix the problem, sometimes it takes further action and reclaimed moneys from the illegal use (both avenues I've had to use more than a few times, including print magazines pulling unwatermarked photos from the Internet). I disagree about the watermark being done in a bad attitude, but as you know the watermark debate is long and heated in the photography community (with both sides making compelling arguments). My attorney loves it when one of my photos are used with the watermark cropped or (as more often is the case) covered by graphics and advertising.I know this isn't your intent, but just to clarify for the passer by: there's a big difference between "giving photos away for free" and not watermarking them.
I've had my fair share of stolen photos which, as much as I'd like to go on a server-crushing rampage (I sometimes do), in reality do me no real harm. I've also had (probably more than) my fair share of paid photo assignments that I would not have gotten if I were watermarking everything.
I absolutely agree with you that giving away photos doesn't pay the bills in the short term. In fact, I'll be the first to stand up and educate a client or prospect on how much more time/money/experience go into a photo than simply "pressing a button" as some often say. However, good attitudes (which watermarking is not) and exposure via sharing begat more good attitudes and exposure via sharing. If you're that good, over the long term this will lead to (paid) opportunities, opportunities that will never happen if future clients never see you because no one ever shares your photos because you watermark them.
Think of it as free advertising. You're a business, normally you'd have to pay (a lot) to promote your photography in the hopes of getting clients. Give a little and not only are you getting free promotion, you're also gaining a portfolio piece, another client to showcase, and another good reference, and fostering good will (karma is real).
It's all about intent, generosity, and thinking long term. If it's some cheap ripoff product from the bad side of the pond that stole your photos, fine...burn their servers to the ground (again, I've done this myself). If it's a worthy cause or something you can get behind, and they follow etiquette (ask before use), then what's the harm?
Again, all about the intent.
FWIW, yes: I do both.
I've been screwed too many times by people who don't have any ethics to let it go (realtors have been some of the worst offenders of photo theft in my experience). If people were like you then it would be easier. Some photographers might provide clean copies for certain social media outlets they're fond of (not that anything I shoot is necessarily what you would want or even like in the first place).Personally, I really HATE watermark photos. I see many great photos RUINED by cheesy watermarks.
Interestingly, there's been a lot of photos/photographers that I would have LOVED to share on our social media channels over the years but their screwy looking watermarks just kill it for me. I hate seeing a nice photo just to notice it's been defiled.
We always give credit where credit is due. If everyone just did that simple thing there'd be no need for watermarks.
.02
Lightroom or Photoshop can both be set to add one on save/export. There were a few hosting sites that could do this too, but it's becoming less and less popular.
That said, I wouldn't recommend it. The reason it's become unpopular is it's kind of like gun control...watermarking only punishes legitimate viewers. Photo thieves will take them watermarked or not. Quite frankly, going after them is more effort (and cost) than it's worth, unless that's just something you enjoy spending your time doing.
I've been screwed too many times by people who don't have any ethics to let it go (realtors have been some of the worst offenders of photo theft in my experience). If people were like you then it would be easier. Some photographers might provide clean copies for certain social media outlets they're fond of (not that anything I shoot is necessarily what you would want or even like in the first place).
Laughing.....