A debate just lately raged on Threads: do you have to watermark your pictures?
Despite it being a seemingly innocuous query, there are some photographers who’re surprisingly passionate in regards to the matter.
“Looks terrible, and anyone who is going to steal your image can easily remove the watermark with AI anyway!” stated one.
“I used to watermark my photos because I was worried about someone stealing them. Looking back, it seems a bit silly now, but we all live and learn,” stated one other.
“The bigger the watermark, the weaker the photography,” opined a 3rd.
Sure, some watermarks are ugly. They can distract from the picture and, as many identified, they’re straightforward to take away. So why hassle?
I’m not proposing splattering your title repeatedly all around the picture as if fired from a paint gun, however for me, a neat brand or signature within the nook is not any totally different from an artist signing a portray.
It’s a refined reminder that somebody made this, and owns the copyright. My watermark matches the emblem on my web site and is a part of my model. I believe it appears to be like good {and professional}.
Of course, I do know it gained’t cease a decided thief. If somebody actually desires to steal your picture, they’ll. But most individuals aren’t malicious, they’re simply clueless. They see a fairly picture on-line and assume it’s free to make use of. They don’t know the legislation, and so they hardly ever credit score the photographer.
When that occurs (and it usually does), my watermark is my means of asserting possession and ensuring I get the credit score I deserve.
And with regards to the thieves, it’s much more helpful. If somebody crops or clones it out, that’s not unintended. That’s proof of intent, and it provides me a stronger authorized case if I must chase them for fee.
So no, my watermark isn’t ‘terrible’. It’s my digital signature. My quiet little “I made this, please don’t nick it” within the nook.
And if it makes you have a look at it? That’s a win!