Yes, yes I hear you… not yet another addition to the endless watermarking debate. But hear me out. The post isn’t that long. Because if there’s one thing I regret about sharing photos on the internet, it’s that I haven’t always been adding a watermark to my images. Not because I think it would keep anyone from taking a photo that they find online and use/steal/re-share it for whatever purpose. It would be foolish to assume that. No, I watermark for a different reason. Take this photo for example:
It’s the only one of my images that has really gone “viral”. It’s available for licensing on Getty Images and I’ve sold exactly one license. Woo-hoo. But if you do a Google Image Search, you’ll get pages upon pages of search results for this photo. In languages that I can neither read nor even recognize. It’s really all over the place – and it doesn’t have a watermark. NONE of its appearances points back to me and my website. So it is a complete loss to me. Because it doesn’t do anything for me.
The aspect of “protecting” an image with a watermark on the other hand can be almost completely neglected if you ask me. Yes, you can slap a big and ugly, obtrusive watermark on your photos and it will probably keep people from stealing it. It will also keep people from enjoying the image as you had intended.
So the sole purpose of the watermark in an image is to add a reference to its origin. If it’s unobtrusive enough people who will steal it and use it in their “50 amazing autumn photos” gallery (many of these usages I’d be okay with, if I’d just been asked, by the way) probably won’t feel too compelled to remove it, and I think the majority of the “normal sharing crowd” (by that I mean people who copy the image and upload it to their social media account, instead of sharing the link) doesn’t bother either.
Maybe it’s delusional, but what if one million viewers saw the watermark, and 1000 came back to my website. And I could maybe convert just one into a future buyer, or licensee? Think about it. It’s not something that will happen in one day of course. But this photo was surely seen by more than a million people.
There’s another dimension of watermarking that is often left out in discussions about the pros and cons: the impact when an infringer removes the watermark. “Disguising copyright management information” as it is called makes it a willful infringement. Photo Attorney explains it in detail in this article: Watermarks Can Be Music To Your Ears.
Stay up to date with my blogposts and subscribe via email. It’s easy and you’ll never receive more than one post per day.
All images and content © by Alexander S. Kunz, unless otherwise noted. No re-use without express written permission. Most images are available as prints and for commercial licensing. Please contact me if you’re interested. Prints and licensed images are NOT watermarked, of course.
Strictly non-commercial usage (ie. no monetization through ads, referral systems etc.) on private blogs and websites is allowed if proper credit and a back-link are provided in the form of “Photo by Alexander S. Kunz – www.alex-kunz.com“. Thanks!