Stop Watermarking Your Photos
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 04. 2020
- How do you watermark your images? Just don't do it! In this video we cover why photographers think they have to watermark their images, and all the reasons why it's actually a waste of time. Did we miss something? Leave us a comment below.
For more professional photography tips, how to's, and reviews, subscribe to our channel!
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
You’re discussing visible watermarks. The trick is to use steganography to leave a near invisible mark that the thief doesn’t see, and thus doesn’t know to try to remove. It’s also mathematically difficult to remove, thus protecting your work more
Which method of steganography is the one you use for photos?
Dude, I do portraits for friends and acquaintances pro bono, all I ask is credit me on social media- which they proceed to post without crediting me. My photos rock, I deserve the credit
You deserve payment for your skills. Can't pay the bills with social media credits. Sounds like you need better friends.
Yeah, people will happily walk on you if you lay down, simple as that. And no one will know who took a photo on social media if you do not mark them, I have tons of photos out there that existed before social media, and I see them used all over the place with no credit. I used to get paid for photos, I will never get any requests nor paid work if people cannot contact me, social media has broken photography pretty much. Also, those who give images for use from sites with credit, well there is piles of people using them commercially and they are not handing over a cent, they think it is just free to use how you like. There is a reason photographers only gave small unprintable files as proofs, till customers paid !
Two years late but a small watermark does more advertising than you think
If I see two really good photos in different places and see the same watermark on both, my mind already starts going “This photographer is good” even if I don’t know exactly who they are
That's a signature. A signature is technically a watermark and what most people think a watermark is. But it isn't, imho. I can see adding a 'watermark' with your name and/or company name/logo will help promote a person/business, if one is in the business, but other than that, that so call watermark is just a signature if there is only a single 'watermark' on the picture. It is for branding. It can still be removed. You don't need proof of someone removing the 'watermark' if the photo was stolen for personal gain. The proof may increase the end result in a civil case though. But if you have the original, taken from a camera setup up properly to embed the name/business in the exif, you have all the proof needed to win a civil copyright case. Other than self/business promotion, there is absolutely no reason to trash your good photo with a signature/watermark. Some of them look dumb anyways. I see so many novice photographers putting a signature/watermark on their photos, some are horrible photos but I am nice and give a thumbs up, and then add the dumbest, ugliest watermwark/signature like they are DaVinci. Just stop. If someone is going to steal your work, they will. Just cya (cover your a) by retaining original raw and/or jpeg that has your copyright info embedded on the originals taken from a properly setup camera body.
There are no general rules. For some uses watermarking is good, for some others is not. Some photos are works of art, but the majority are products. And every product, not that may have but must have information about its producer. Watermark is one of the ways to give that information to the consumers and to ensure them that you stand behind your work.
what about metadata, if someone is interested he/she could just look for it
I am a photographer and I totally disagree with your idea. My pictures were stolen from competitors around the world and my watermark was cropped out by the thieves. Now I have to put a big watermark in the center of the image to prevent my hard work being stolen.
The bigger watermark only takes even more away from your art and prevents nothing in regards to theft. If you don't want your images stolen, then don't put them on the internet.
With reverse image search and strong metadata on your images, you are better protected and you don't ruin your images.
Look into Pixsy. They will find your work and help you get compensated for your work.
www.pixsy.com/
@@SpectaclePhoto Freaking What? By not having a watermark you dont have any concrete way of proving ownership on the spot. Your whole thing of "It looks bad" is no replacement for actual legal logic. Whether or not it "Looks bad" completely depends on how the watermark was placed. I have seen many images that were watermarked where I didnt even notice the water mark until I tried to figure out who the artist was and then I noticed the watermark. Of course placing the water mark in a croppable spot is not going to be all that effective, so I agree with a centered water mark or a central color matched water mark. I will say once again, Meta data is useless when it comes to screenshots. Also do you really not get that most portfolios today posted online? Where do you think the customers are going to put the final images they receive?! "Dont post them online" is not feasible in most cases, you twit.
Huang, thank you for speaking up. I agree with you.
Do you not have the raw file? If you have the raw file…. Case closed.
@@demonsaint1296ive always wondered.. if you have the proof like having the raw files, is it that enough to fight and get your photos back from being stolen?
I do a-lot of weddings and events. If the client agrees to a certain amount of images, the images that are being proofed are all watermarked. Once they've made their final selections, I remove the watermark and send them their final gallery. So IMO watermarks are important.
I'm proud of my art and my signature and watermark and never gonna remove it.
To prevent piracy, you should watermark your photos and videos. Buddy, some of this stuff isn't even available to download and people still steal it and post it on the internet. People rely on these pictures and videos to make a living. A watermark can honestly help with the Copyright process as well in certain instances.
If they are going to steal your work, then they aren't going to pay you anyway. Watermarked images get stolen all the time. A watermark can be removed and Metadata will help just as much, if not more in the copyright process.
@@SpectaclePhoto Your logic smoked crack and died. Its not about the thieves not paying the artist, its about the profits they make by slapping your art onto a Tshirt and making thousands or millions. If you know how to actually place a water mark it becomes very difficult for even AI to remove it with out destroying the image. A watermark would also serve as a first line deterrent to steal the image in the first place. What good is meta data going to do when they screenshot the image on your website? Or when a customer posts the final images and it gets stolen from there. You are also missing the biggest part of copyright law. Yes it is true that by the art being formed you have a technical copyright of the works, but if you actually want to sue for damages when the art is stolen it has to be registered before it is stolen. This either means that you have to make your customer or publish date wait the 3-9 months for that approval to come through, or you can try to protect the art with a watermark. It is in fact true that stock photo websites were having their watermarks removed, but the big part of that issue is that these websites placed their identical water marks exactly in the same place on every single photo, making it very easy to train AI to remove them. It is again more about how the watermark is placed, how transparent it is and several other factors with the goal being to make it as difficult as possible to remove the watermark. You logic reads like "I might get hurt in a car crash even though Im going the speed limit, may as well speed!"
I agree with you. Many people work very hard for their photography, art and other things.
@@SpectaclePhoto bzzzzzt, wrong. I've caught several people ripping off my work; once confronted with it, they saw the error in their ways, felt guilty, signed a contract and paid up. Your whole argument is based only on the case of evil people trying to rip you off -- a lot of the time they just don't think before they do something stupid (particularly on social media). Whatever they were doing whilst you photographed them was important, but not you as a photographer capturing it.
I don't watermark my photos, but I will never stop watermarking my art.
@@ecosseman That's why you watermark the inside so it's not seen on the art itself genius, and signatures are different than watermarks. Having a fine piece of art that's autographed is sought out by many. Don't like signature simple buy art without one, that simple.
cool cool so you have absolutely no way to prove it when your photos are stolen, fun! ever heard of screenshots?
Watermarking photos helps in two ways 1. It deters theft to a large extent. 2. It serves as a means of identity/brand recognition when your images appear in image search engines like Google. I use a tool called Mass Watermark to watermark and resize my images in bulk before uploading them online.
Alright, who’s watermark hurt this man?
All of them! All of them hurt me!
@@SpectaclePhoto why???? cause you couldnt steal the art?????? Seriously man, this video was posted, what? over 2 years ago and you're still going on about how evil water marks are? I am fully convinced you are on crack!!
@@EminayDrackoness doing Crack will be worth it if it stops even one person from adding their ugly pointless watermark to even a single photo.
@@SpectaclePhoto It is so utterly ridiculous that you object to people who may watermark own images, that I have to think this is just click bait. Bah...
Yeah i dont watermark anything other than my realestate images before the client pays for it then its removed.
People will steal photos with and without the photos. I hate watermarks in my photos. I don’t pay attention to water marks. It doesn’t make me know the photographer more.
Are watermarks useful if I'm making original paintings , but selling only prints of the original paintings on my website ? What's stopping someone who came to BUY a print from just printing it for free?
Wondering that as well (for my uncle who's an artist). I'm thinking that using a smaller photo with less detail for the web will make it harder for someone who wants to swipe and print. I didn't even think about adding metadata until this video.
How do you prove the photo is yours to get royalties from it??
how to back link, could you help me to understand? I'm not tech. savvy
I am not in for your arguenemt.
Why are you not able to play music from popular artist nowadays on CZcams without a strike? or use them in your works to promote the artist? That is because they deem it necessary for the artist to be paid. Even when you pay for a subscription you still can't use those songs legally.
So why can't photogs and videogs use that sweet watermark they paid for or created by themselves. I agree some watermarks are just horrible on the photo and spoil the photo itself. Too large or just in the wrong places. I had a client who asked me to remove the logo from my pictures I took of them. I declined to do so because they were having a big head about it. Their approach alone made me not want to remove the logo and told them I will file a lawsuit if they printed my work without my permission or altered my logo. I really dont care but if I give you a quote and you turn to demand for a lower price I stamp my logo on your photos because you are not willing to support my asking price. I said enough let me leave some room for some @ from others.
Could you imagine if your favorite song on the radio just said the artists name over and over on top of the song? They do audio "water marks" on premium beats. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. Photographers deserve to get paid for their work. Watermarks don't guarantee payment and in fact have been shown to reduce value of the work and opportunity of new work.
WRONG! Ask any copyright attorney-only a hack would not watermark their copyrighted work and only a thief or moron would encourage you not to. How stupid!
Are you a copyright attorney? You don't need a watermark to retain full rights to your work. Even when you register your work, watermarks are not a requirement.
Since I made this video, watermarks are even more irrelevant and useless with the roll out of generative fill in photoshop.
But you do you boo. ;)
So what you’re saying is, my idea of printing out my logo and having people hold it up in photos was a genius idea?!?! 🤩
You were doing it right with out even knowing it!
You can also do this on EBay so sellers can contact you privately.
litterally, how is this any different than adding a water mark? by "Spectacles " previously stated logic here, that sign can also be removed using AI to fill in the gap.
For artistic photos, a watermark is a good idea like a signature on a piece of art. For professional advertising photos, no watermark needed, or don't use them on services that don't want them like some Print by Demand options.
Thanks to you, I just joined Pixsy. So, would I still collect income of my imported images if I don't register them? Because, by the looks of it, it's pretty expensive to register 1 single image. Thanks in advance!
You can register up to 750 images for $55. Just google it and you can get more info.
like your presentation so creative..
Brill vid, fam. I've always relied on metadata and copyright info. Ima give Pixsy a tryout. Thanks for the 411.
Respect.
0:05 ABSOLUTE LIEEEEEEEEEESSSS Unless you hold a REGISTERED copyright, If you art is stolen through a screen shot or other nefarious means you have no legal access to sue the thief. Even if you try to use nonwatermark CMI to protect your art, (IE meta data stuff like that) you really the US laws make it too difficult or too expensive to sue with out the art having been copyright registered, which the turn around time for is 3-9 months when business is running as usual. Sure, It is illegal to remove ANY form of CMI but for it to become possible to actually sue you have to have a registered copyright. Even if your are taking about a takedown notice, what prevents them from ignoring your demands if you are unable to sue? A ton of websites do not respond to take down notices. these other non visible ways of marking your art tend to be useless when some one takes a screen shot of the published photo, slaps it on a Tshirt and makes profits. I may not be a lawyer, but I have read the exact copyright laws to fact check what I have to say here. Exact language is exact language. Reported for scam. Also in your Description you asked if you missed something, and ask that we comment down below, yet when several of us in the comments have has a differing take on things you argue with us telling us your entire argument is based on "It looks bad". This is an over generalization that does not take into account the several different techniques for quality watermarks. Your argument does not hold water. Edit: Here is the exact law that goes over why you can't sue with out a FORMAL copyright. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf
Also I will grant that at times, depending on what the photo is, you might not want to watermark an image, like in the case of wedding photos that are highly unlikely to be stolen in the first place, but that was not your stated arguement. The reason I have posted my take on this and argued with you here is because you are spreading misinformation that can seriously financially hurt people.
You do not need to register a copyright in order to gain rights to your work. Your work is protected the moment you create it. Any and all version of that work are protected as well.
@@SpectaclePhoto thats bull.
Is there a way to add metadata without re-exporting an image through a program like Lightroom?
Some camera bodies allow you to this in settings.
In Windows if its a jpg (havn't tried aother formas, but probably works), right click on image, go to properties, in the tab details you can add a lot of additional info
I usually strip metadata before posting
I have a blog and i'm going to send this vid to my VA. i think watermark is tacky especially for recipes photos. Not necessary. I as a consumer, i don't even touch or share watermark photos so I'd rather pay to play, by letting me use my photos. will direct my VA to focus on the metadata.
I use watermark just to spread my studio art. so its a valuable reasons for me.
Thank you, I agree with you
I have a niche product I’ll be selling. Because of that reason I will watermark photos of those specific products. It won’t stop others from copying me, but at least people will know who originally created this type of product. A design patent will cost over one thousand dollars and will have to wait unfortunately.
I take photos of runners during running events. I don't waterwark because I don't know to quickly do it in multiple photos. 😂 I'm also super lazy to do it.
lightroom
XnView
you just saved me ton of time!!
I take the time to take the picture, pay to get there, I think it's better for me they know who you are. Not guessing at it.
Why take the time, pay to get there and then add an after thought watermark to your creation? They don't have to guess with Meta data that doesn't impose on your creation.
How many followers have you gotten from your watermark? Even when people tag you in a post the numbers are close to zero.
@@SpectaclePhoto Maybe so, but anyone can take a picture of your pictures and say they took it.
@@deanjagger1190 Anyone can take your picture, remove the watermark and say they took it. Theft is theft, and watermarks are nothing but a speed bump at best.
I appreciate this talk. :)
my question: do you still think this way with AI scrapers everywhere? I was looking into different ways to make the thft harder and the most advisable method is watermarking... what do you say?
There are hundreds of AI apps specifically made to remove watermarks. The only viable way has been distorting your images with random patterns that cover the entire image. Watermarks are more irrelevant and useless now more than ever.
Smash that like button!!!
Haha! Always sounds weird saying it! It's like the panhandling of the internet.
Agreed!
the water mark is a deterrent. Of course locking your door doesn't save you completely but it takes more energy to break down that door and people are lazy always taking the path of least resistance. If they took the time to take into photoshop for a bit, then let em have it I guess...
How much is this system that you said pixels or something
www.pixsy.com/ is free. I think they added premium features, but they only make money when they collect usage fees from people who used your images without permission.
I mean, it drives people to my patreon where the watermarks are not present.
Not sure if I agree or not, but you have won the debate. I will not learn how to watermark my photos.
You do as you want, people always take images, no credit & it is this mindset that makes a generation of people who think it is ok to use images commercially for zip. You do not like a watermark ? then do not look 😀
Good points n notes
like your editing! ✌😜
Well done boys! Well done!
I feel so stupid for watermarking my images after watching this video
thank you very much for the video, intro is funny and overall also informative... and I completely understand your arguments... Watermarks simply destroy even an image in an aesthetics way.. However, I will recommend everyone still to use watermarks especially on platforms where a free download is possible. Simply if anybody wants to steal our intellectual property, they should at least make the effort to remove it! Also many people / newcomer do not have the contact and trust to the agencies and can deal with them in advance. Anyone who removes (or give the order) watermarks in a company with Photoshop is aware that it is not legal. A serious boss also have a second opportunity to overthink his decision in this short time period..
What destroys the work more? a little aesthetic change or having it outright stolen? If you know the right techniques for watermarking you can 1. prevent the theft of your art, 2. Prevent the removal of the watermark 3. ensure that you are credited for your work. If you slap a logo with no real transparency on a photo of course its going to obstruct the image, but if you make it highly transparent and color match the water mark a bit, most people wont even notice the watermark at first. You know, using a slightly different orange over the orange spots of the photo, repeat for blues, greens, reds etc.
I’m adding a watermark while watching this video.
There is invisible watermarking. Where it's not visible to the human eye but it's there when you need to prove work is yours. So it can be copied, shared, even screenshotted and the invisible watermark remains. So if you were to use an image to make money off of that has an invisible watermark the person who made it has a way to prove you used the image without their permission to make money from it. And it's not something you can crop out either, because it's usually covers the whole picture.
Can it still show the hidden message if someone edit the image adding text, logo or in general changing some pixels?
@@alonsogarrote8898 A watermark is just to help prove where the image originated from. Any form of watermark can be removed it just depends on what type of watermark it is as to how to remove it.
Visible watermarks you can use AI or blending tools to reproduce the image without watermarks. But visible watermarks obscure the image and people don't want to copy or share it too much.
An Invisible watermark on the other hand is created using an algorithm either software or AI. It changes the shade of the pixels by a set number of shades so the image quality is still there, visually pleasing without all the obscurities. It's still able to be proven the copyright belongs to you. But as far as removing the watermark goes. You have to degrade the quality of the image before the watermark vanishes. But even then it could still be there to a certain point. Also an invisible watermark covers the entire image as well.
Both visible and invisible watermarks can be used in images and video. One is just undetectable even for AI unless the algorithm is there. There are also slightly invisible watermarks that are done with opacity, but you can still slightly see the watermarks.
@@alonsogarrote8898 give me an update on this
Guess what THERE ARE INVISIBLE WATERMARKS... mind blown? Whelp, you can, so the their doesn't notice it and it makes it easier to prove that YOU own it, not them. (Works for screen snipping too.)
How would you prove it court???
Either way... An artist can reverse engineer your works and make a better one. Such is competition.
And with AI. Even more so.
Despite humanity's hate for what they do not understand, sadly.
big fat unwatermarked images in my portfolio.
My watermark edit videos have been stolen makes me feel angry inside.
Getty stole my photo from Flickr. I Stopped using Flickr.
You can't fight Getty as they take and then own your photo without your permissions to do so.
This is an AD for a web service. Nothing wrong with sharing tools, but take with a grain of salt all its being said on this video. The use cases you mention are very specific, not considering more scenarios in which having your own signature may be beneficial.
I could see your point if we were paid by the services we suggested. The point was to show services that will find your stolen work with out having to put a pointless name on your amazing work. The only practical and necessary use of a watermark is for work you were not paid for yet and you are trying to sell. That's it. All the other reasons are silly as outlined in this advertisement video.
My advice would be to take anything on the internet with a grain of salt. You do you boo.
Time to get my video stolen
You are wrong about not re-using. The best pics get used over and over
Its never a waste of time trying to protect your creations. You sound silly.
I agree, my voice always sounds silly on camera. Good luck protecting your creations with an ineffective method.
U think I haven’t thought of all that 🤣 yea I DO watermark for advertising cause that’s part of my JOB and my watermarks aren’t easily removable. Y’all do u tho
We always do.
I would like to know how to do what you are doing with the watermarks that are hard to remove. I take a lot of photos and started sharing online. Some people just are sincere and kind hearted and want me to keep posting. Some I think just want to use them and I would have no idea
It's your opinion....good take but I still will
You do you boo. Better make it super big and bright to try and fight the new generative fill feature.
Let me go tell Getty Images to stop immediately!
Watermarking photos is just seeking likes on social media. A little chest beating overcomes low self esteem, temporarily. But it’s a free world and photography is a broad church. Personally I would rather spend time behind a camera than in front of a computer.
No it’s not. It’s a way to make it harder for people to steal photos, catfish, put it on porn sites, make money making fake profiles like onlyfans of you.
@@icanbreathe9161 removing watermarks is not difficult and can be automated. If someone wants to steal your work a watermark is not going to do it. Best publish only low resolution images and sell high resolution. As I said it’s a broad church and if it’s what you want to go for it. Live & live let.
@@geoffreystone1598 like i said, it makes it **harder**. People go for EASY victims. If they see a watermark they’ll likely think that you also have a DMCA program that can track them down whereas someone with no watermark is an easier more vulnerable target.
It’s like being a woman outside in the dark wearing a long ponytail vs very short hair.
They may be the same height and weight but he former is an easier target than the latter.
@@geoffreystone1598 not everyone can post low resolution images. Imagine if everyone on Instagram posted low resolution images and told you to buy the high res version. That’s not gonna happen. But looking at your profile you are clearly an elderly man that doesn’t know enough about the internet and modern day technology.
I watermark my edits cause people steal them
What about watermarking AI art that you're trying to sell?
AI art is probably the best argument on why Watermarks are pointless. All current AI apps use millions of images gathered from the internet and compile the parts it needs to produce an end result. Some of the results even have versions of the artist's signature. Watermarking AI art that is made from images used without permission to prevent someone from using the AI art without permission is a new level of irony.
Are you part owner in Pixsey? Is there a cost to use this service? If so, photographers would have to pay to have this done? If not, is it okay to just upload all of our photos to a database that probably has somewhere in the fine print, that nobody reads, that says something like “once uploaded Pixsey owns the rights to images” lol. Lastly, photographers would have to upload their entire catalog to have this done lol?
Watermark your photos, for helpful reasons of doing so. Because once out of your possession (the internet), sure you can’t control what people will do and can’t count on everyone to give you credit, so that’s what your watermark does for you when you aren’t able to be there to do it yourself. The people that don’t want to represent your artistry because your name is on it is probably someone you don’t want to work with anyway, and was probably going to use your work anyway without you knowing had it not been watermark. Unless they come to you and ask that you remove it so that they can use it and will be compensating you for doing so. There will be someone that sees your work across the world that likes it and will hunt you down to have you do work for them because of that watermark.
When we as artist are dead and gone, our name is what will allow our legacy to live on.
We as artist and business people know what work to and to not watermark. Creative free work watermark. Corporate paid images used to advertisements, that’s self explanatory.
Simply put, good work will greatly outweigh your watermark every time.
Ever tried making content that doesn’t sound condescending? 🤔
Totally agree!!!!!!
Let them steal then sue.
6
Watermarked for copyright ©️ #NoModsOnlyCheat
You took the photo. You already own it. Watermarking doesn't "copyright" it.
@@SpectaclePhoto just TRYYYYYYY suing for copyright infringement with that logic. Yes, you gain a technical copyright once the art is formed, but the laws also state that in order to actually sue for copyright infringement you must have a FORMAL copyright on the art. Even if you were able to pay for a lawyer and convince a judge to take your case, even if you won the suit, with out a formal copyright you would only gain a portion of the sales price the thieves use. Meaning if they slap your image on a Tshirt and it costs 10 to make the tshirt with $15 profit, you only get $15 per Tshirt sold. Good luck paying your lawyer with that and have any thing left over. Once you gain a formal, officialized copyright on that art you can sue for damages when that art is stolen even in cases where the thief is simply passing it off as their own with out selling it. -Something like $150,000 for each violation. Most of the people that create art live on that art, and do not have lawyers on retainer. EVEN IF YOU DID, any theft or copyright violation that happens before the formal copyright is filed is moot. In previous comments you said "Metadata is just as good as a watermark...." so you have admitted that on some level a water mark is just as good as metadata. I am so tired of people and their half baked logic. Also , just think this through for a moment, Metadata use is digital so your earlier comment of "If you dont want your art stolen dont post it online" is debunked, why else would you need metadata to begin with if you are not using the internet in some fashion to distribute your image? Even if you simply email the image to some one there is nothing stopping them at that point from taking a screenshot and slapping it on a Tshirt and making bank. Sure you could use meta data to prove ownership, but once again, if you don't wait the 3-9 months after submitting the art for a formal copyright you are not going to get anything worthwhile if you can even manage to sue without a formal copyright. Seriously! Here, I will even link you to the actual law. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf
Let's say I'm down with what you are saying.... How will someone know who painted it? Yes, the commissioner of the work will know, may spread the word, but if they sell it, or it gets somehow relegated to a garage sale or thrift store or something, other people seeing it in the following years won't be able to identify it, any painter could claim to have painted it, no? ..or the stuff you just do and is never sold, or posted. ... I'd like to see DaVinci scale a 16:9 to the micrometer, or use an arcing tool:p
Thanks for the info. I never thought about this and thanks for giving resources to search after posting.
There's just so much in this video that I disagree with, and that my real world experience is the opposite of, that I can't be bothered outlining why.
Watermark your images and post it on any platform and keep original on your secret drive with a password,stop these wrong information you are telling us
Mate how about don't try tell people what to do you legit just had a watermark on the start of your video 😅😅
this video is so cringe ew
if you trust your charisma so much, stand up is the way my friend. This video is a total waste of time, you could make a point without embarrasing yourself
This video still wastes less time than the hours lost on pointless watermarks.
This a really, really, (really) bad idea.
...if you wannabe a dealer.......then go and star selling carrs......o bananas.....maybe
Sorry, what?
Yeah right , I totally disagree with you if you have extremely rare photographs and you want to sell them at auction or even amazon / ebay you need to put a watermark on them , I always put watermark s on my photographs , your information on this video is Utterly Butterly Bonkers
"extremely rare photographs" should be protected at all cost!
Pixsy for a fee, lol…..so you’re hoping that people will be honest without a watermark and call you to give you royalties…… now that’s a joke. Have you took a look around lately in our world? It’s a shark feeding frenzy.
Yeah and the hundreds of AI apps designed specifically to remove watermarks is just chumming the water. Watermarks are more irrelevant and useless than ever. Thanks for helping us prove our point.
I disagree with what ur thinking. If u don’t watermark ur photos one of ur photos will be stole they will just repost the photo that they stole..
WRONG - BS "advice"
Thank you for your extensive thought out reply. We have reconsidered our position and have now watermarked all of our work.