I've recently become aware that one of my photos has been used by a national newspaper beyond its licensing terms (cc-by-sa-2.5, used without the required credit), and whilst I can pursue them for some compensation, I was wondering about how effective watermarking is as a deterrent for the future? After all, if somebody has little regard for copyright, what's to stop them cropping a watermark out?
Answer
I think adding your copyright info to the meta of the images is more important than a watermark. I understand both sides of the "to watermark, or not to watermark" discussion, and both have valid points.
But more important is that you should always added copyright and contact info to your file's meta data. There's really no excuse not to - it doesn't detract from the image at all, and it's fairly easy to do in a batch process with Photoshop, Bridge, or even Lightroom.
Of course, if you don't mind people using your images, well then don't bother. But if you do, there's no excuse for not having your copyright stuff in the file meta.
I'm not really sure, but I think that might even go further in a litigated case over copyright infringement, if it can be shown the violator's file has the meta there and they ignored it, that's pretty hard to fight from their side.
No comments:
Post a Comment