When is it appropriate to use watermarks?

[stitchedlamb.livejournal.com]

I hope this post is ok, I just wanted some opinions from people who are more experienced at taking precautions to protect their work.

As I'm sure most of you know, DeviantArt has implemented a watermark system that you can choose to use every time you upload a piece, which shows up on full view. I'm aware it's not a foolproof method, but it's something, yes?

I just wanted to know if it's a good idea to use watermarks in general, or if you should only resort to them if you've encountered theft before? I know most people don't like looking at them, and since I've never had a problem with theft, I don't know if I should start using them or not.

Basically, is it ok to start taking precautions now, or only use them when I've already had my work stolen? In all honesty, I guess I'm worried about looking arrogant and assuming someone would steal my stuff. I'm not all that concerned about it since I'm not well known, but since the option is there, I wanted to know what everyone thought.

Thanks guys!

Comments

[drake-anaya.livejournal.com]

My gut feeling is... do whatever you want. You don't necessarily have to use DA's watermarks, but I always like putting something on my art so that I can have some proof that it's mine, but I'll tend to take more time watermarking a full-color, hours-of-work drawing than a digital sketch, which gets little more than my signature scrawled on it.

As to whether watermarks are "pretentious"... depends on the mark. If you have some subtle little thing up in a corner, that's respectable. Writing "DO NOT STEAL" in huge letters all over the drawing is a little less cool. :)

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

Sorry to nitpick but the expression is "foolproof" not "foul proof" :)

To answer your question, I think it's better to get into the habit early on when there is little to no risk of people trying to steal your work than to wait until it is already happening. If people want images without watermarks, they can always buy a print from you. I tend to think people who want free art with ANY sort of identifying watermark as taking the fact the art is free for granted.

It's not about looking arrogant, it's about being sensible and taking appropriate precautions and also helping make sure people will know who did the artwork since people can download your art, upload it to a photobucket account where someone else downloads it and puts it on their website and so forth. With a watermark in place, there will always be a way for people to know the original artist.

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

whoops, i mean "free art without ANY sort of identifying..."

[stitchedlamb.livejournal.com]

Not nitpicking, I wasn't sure myself, so I looked it up on Google and got results, so I figured it was accurate. Guess there are other misinformed people too. Thanks for the correction, and feedback ^_^

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

There is a term "foul proof" but it means: "an uncorrected proof; a proof containing an excessive quantity of errors." :) You're welcome ^_^

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Do you lock the gate before, or after, the cows get out? If you're concerned, then you probably should use watermarks before you have a theft problem, not after.

That said, I personally don't bother. But my 2-d art isn't anything special, and my 3-d can't be stolen so easily. You can swipe copies of photos of it, I suppose, but what would be the point of that?

[drake-anaya.livejournal.com]

"Hi, my name is (Not Bladespark) and I make fursuits like (these ones that look a lot like Bladespark's). Send me all your moneys!!!" ;)

I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen very often though.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I suppose it could happen. But with fursuits people /do/ want the original item itself, whereas with art all you need is a copy. Somebody could scam people with my photos, but they couldn't set themselves up as being me with them, they'd eventually have to actually provide a physical item.

Plenty of folks do scam with fursuit stuff, and plenty more have good intentions and then never actually deliver. But I think it's still not as common as scams and failure to complete with 2-d art.

I just wish people would actually research before they buy something! It would save so much grief if they did.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

People could and would still con people with 3D work though.
They'll claim to be you, accept a commission for a suit, take the money and run. Then you'll be stuck with an angry customer. :/

I've had people impersonate me and try to initiate art trades, fortunately one of the people the impersonate tried to initiate a trade with got suspicious and came to my homepage to ask about it so I could get the fake DA account deleted.

But I could have easily been stuck with a handful of angry people asking for their half of a trade I never initiated.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I suppose it could happen.

I could also get run over by a car tomorrow.

Putting watermarks on my photos would do about nothing to prevent somebody from imitating me, after all. If they were pretending to be me, the watermarks would be my watermarks, and they are me, right?

I prefer to not worry about it. If it happens, I'll deal with it, but I can't think of any useful preventative measures that are worth bothering with.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

I never said watermarking would prevent that sort of thing, I'm saying impersonating does happen.
Still, if you include the URL to your homepage you'd still enable any possible victims to come to your site and possibly clear it up.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

As has already been mentioned, removing a URL is really quite easy. So why should I bother?

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Because a lot of stuff that's reposted is reposted intact.
But hey I'm not out to convince you to add a url if you don't want to, I'm just saying, in general and as a reply to the OP.

[oreana-galena.livejournal.com]

Well, I honestly thought my work wasn't good enough to be stolen, so I said "why bother--nobody is going to like it; especially not my old 'emo' drawn work", but to my surprise, a girl took one of my most personal (and emo) of pieces titled "I Give Up" and placed it in her profile without even asking me if it was okay to. It made me uber confused (and not to mention highly upset) because...I merely self-inserted myself with a male anime character, and, honestly, who would like that? =/

Back during the 'Paine' theft, I saw her lifting some images by other people and they were pretty much only slightly altered from character screencaps, and were really rough sketch work from not so popular artists, and she was claiming them as hers. So, really, anything is possible.

I don't watermark my work, because aside from that one theft, it's been quiet. But as drake said, "do whatever you want--it's your work". =)

[sirithduriel.livejournal.com]

I do watermark my drawings, mostly when posting on dA, though subtle (not that when you take one look this copyright notice is all over the place). Okay, not many people look at my stuff (I'm too busy to get really involved in communities like dA), but I just want that little piece of security.

My point: just do what you want ;)

[muura.livejournal.com]

People steal art be there a watermark or not. The only way to protect your art 100% is to not post on the internet.

[gore-wuff.livejournal.com]

Precisely! I am greatly impressed by your objective thinking.

[ultimatekingrat.livejournal.com]

Yes, but with watermark the thief will look like an idiot, thus won't probably do it + there is a proof who the image really belongs to

[muura.livejournal.com]

Same thing as using a simple signature, really

[ultimatekingrat.livejournal.com]

not really. A simple signature can be erased simply.

[aerospiritual.livejournal.com]

I'm rather iffy about watermarks. Though my irritation with them goes to the point where they're large, obtrusive, and are honestly uglifying the piece. I have no issues with the discrete ones that you are only able to notice if you look closely enough.

But images are stolen regardless of watermarks, and they are easily removed at that. Many digital imaging classes will teach you how to remove them even.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

If people wanna steal your work a watermark isn't going to stop them, they'll either crop it out or trace it or whatever.
But it does help against lazy thieves who'll just repost your work as their own or just people who repost. For that purpose I suggest you also incude the url to your homepage. That way if people see your work elsewhere and want to see more they can find their way to the main body of your work.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

By the way, other people's opinions on wether or not your art is worthy of stealing shouldn't enter into your consideration.

I thought that once, that someone's art wasn't worth stealing and didn't need the watermarks she put in it, but then she told me they had been stolen, so.
Stupid me. Surprised me, but stupid too.

Chainsaw that Watermark

[gore-wuff.livejournal.com]

In my opinion it IS a matter of arrogance. I work in the animation industry and have been to several professional oriented panels consisting of industry giants and entertainment lawyers. In all the panels the subject of copyright, proper credit, and art theft have come into question. The overall answer has always been "Your art really isn't good enough to steal." or "There is almost no possible way someone is making money off your art."

First one is self explanatory as more than 85 percent of the general art within all the varying art communities online isn't worth stealing in the first place, unless is some retarded fanboi, or emo issue involved. You proclaim theft of sorts but how can someone really STEAL your artwork when your the one who put it out there in the open for anyone to just snatch. Honestly, I think this is about shallow art community drama. Sure someone can take your art and say it was their own, but they cannot duplicate your skill, hence it will be obvious the art belongs to someone else. By professional standards who cares if someone shows your work off claiming it as their own. Unless you've copyrighted your work, which I'm sure NO ONE in this community has ever done as it takes $30 an image, taken to your local government branch building. You've got better things to do with your time than to chase down would be art-tards. If anything, this act should be encouraged as it gets your artwork spread further out there, which is what its all about right?

Getting your artwork to be seen by as many people as possible. If your ALWAYS going to want credit for it, then how can one argue against that being arrogance or vanity? In your situation, if someone does such a thing, then by all means call them on it but don't ruin your own artwork with a watermark. Watermarks are heavily distracting to the viewer and an image with some emotional evocation in it will be lost behind the boundaries of a make believe protection of something which probably isn't even worth protecting.

Re: Chainsaw that Watermark

[dragonzara.livejournal.com]

First one is self explanatory as more than 85 percent of the general art within all the varying art communities online isn't worth stealing in the first place, unless is some retarded fanboi, or emo issue involved. You proclaim theft of sorts but how can someone really STEAL your artwork when your the one who put it out there in the open for anyone to just snatch. Honestly, I think this is about shallow art community drama. Sure someone can take your art and say it was their own, but they cannot duplicate your skill, hence it will be obvious the art belongs to someone else. By professional standards who cares if someone shows your work off claiming it as their own.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.

I'm so sick of people going "OMG WAH THEFT!" over some badly drawn pencilled fan-art that THEY'VE copied from some stupid anime.

As you've stated, if they're 'stealing' it, they haven't the skill to draw it themselves, which in the end will be its own...well, end.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks this whole art theft thing is waaaay overhyped.

Re: Chainsaw that Watermark

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

That's like claiming that the reason someone's house got burglarised is it's their fault for having stuff that could be stolen.

It doesn't spread any of our work if someone steals it and could actually put it at risk. If you don't protect your own copyrights then in a case where money is being made off the work the courts may decide that lack of protecting the copyrights in the past means you don't have the right to protest this time.

Also have you heard of the orphens law? If a work is un-attributed and repeatedly spread around to the point where it's original owner can no longer be fine, then under certain conditions orphens law would allow someone to take it for themselves wholly.

Admittedly I agree, a lot of the art fandoms produce isn't worth being stolen and people do make far too much fuss over even the least spectulation of theft, still it isn't a good thing when work gets stole and it isn't about arrogance if the art is worth something since many artists make their money from what they produce.

From a professional's point of view, copyrights are worth protecting but not to the extremes that some people do. And if you actually know what you're doing watermarks do not ruin the work.

Re: Chainsaw that Watermark

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

Getting your artwork to be seen by as many people as possible. If your ALWAYS going to want credit for it, then how can one argue against that being arrogance or vanity?

One can easily argue that it's a simple, practical way to discourage the lazy people who would want to upload your art as their own which is generally the people you would have to worry about the most. It also makes sure that people are aware that you are the artist, which if you aren't a popular or well-known artist, it can be difficult for people to look at your art and recognize it as yours, even with a distinctive style. It's not the same as trying to track down who is stealing your art or bothering to copyright every artwork you do. It takes ten seconds to add a layer in Photoshop with a little bit of text and possible a pre-made logo.

I would say instead, how can one argue that it IS vanity or arrogance to want simple recognition for your artistic efforts?

Re: Chainsaw that Watermark

[alaitallon.livejournal.com]

According to the U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov):

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

So no, it doesn't take $30 to have the right to protect your work.

Not to mention watermarks are usually on there so a) if they do get reposted without permission/claimed as someone elses' then the viewers will know the original artist and b) they cannot be made into prints or other printed media easily by people attempting to use it. As someone who has actually had my art taken several times and claimed by someone else, I now put a watermark on my pictures.

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

The best defense is being so distinctive and so well known that people go "Dude, no, that's Bob's art. You're a shmuck."

I never watermark. I've had someone try to claim my art was theirs...twice, I think, in a decade of having art online. Both times, Alert Readers discovered it instantly. It's just not really an issue. I'm more inclined to think that a discreet web-address in the corner so that people can FIND your art, after random reposts, is more useful.

[beechan2.livejournal.com]

I watermark all of my work anyway, but make sure it's not something that sticks out like a sore thumb, and place it in a spot where it's not in the way, but not so easily erased ( getting a tattoo of it sometime this year, as it represents me as well ^^ ).

And you can also encrypt the file information as your saving it. It's not a sure fire way, as some people nab the cheap way and just take screen shots, then crop the hell out of the screen shot.

As long as you keep your original working files, if it's digital, and if possible, in progress samples or your original pencils, it helps. ( I rarely let go of my original pencils and inks ).

~~Bee

[tombstonerider.livejournal.com]

This has actually made me want to start using one again. I had a little one, that I stuck in the corners but kept forgetting about it aha.

Something I do, which is actually fun, is I play "hide the signature" in alot of my work. Even if there dosen't look it, there's usally a hidden signature/mark in all of my recent peices. So even if I would start putting in a watermark, I have a hidden, personal mark all my own already there as well :D

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

I hide little symbols and my initials in my work generally. The decision to watermark or not is yours, however I wouldn't use an automatic system, the best watermarks should be well hidden so some thief doesn't just crop them out.

Don't let anyone tell you that your work isn't worth protecting, if you feel it needs it then do it.

[fiercereaper.livejournal.com]

I watermark everything in two ways. The illustration has my logo in one of the bottom corners like this: http://www.artspots.com/users/messorius/4318
This way it is harder to swipe, but they can still do it if they want to, and if they're just saving it, they have an automatic roadmap back to me with the web address.

The tattooing stuff however I watermark the hell out of. They can still steal it if they want to copy, and that sadly happens a lot, but more importantly, some little bastard can't take my portfolio and try to get hired on it. There are enough crappy tattooists in the world.

[fiercereaper.livejournal.com]

Them still doing it if they want to, meaning if they really want to steal it they can do it with enough effort. It sounded badthe first way I said that. O.o

[dookiedragon.livejournal.com]

I hate, HATEEEE watermarks! Especially when people slap them over the ENTIRE image...It just ruins people's ability to enjoy said art. If people are that paranoid about people stealing their stuff, then they should get the fuck off the internet. I mean, if someone wants to pass your art off as theirs THAT bad, they'll just trace it.
I mean, you don't see top-notch artists like Dark Natasha and Kyoht slapping big 'ol watermarks onto their work...

If you do decide to use watermarks, it's probably best to maybe cover a small part of your picture, and also include the URL to your gallery so people can locate you in case they do spot some of your stuff being used in an inappropriate way.

[obliviousally.livejournal.com]

I generally don't use watermarks (and I have had my stuff ganked once or twice). I used to put larger copyrights on the sides of the pictures, y'know, 'art (c) me, character (c) blah'. But I stopped doing that and didn't put anything on.

Now I put 'art (c) alaina rose | mo.year', because it helps me organize things better.

But really, it's a matter of personal preference.

[fiztheancient.livejournal.com]

I've never used a watermark. I also haven't put a signature on my drawings in ages because I think it just clutters up the picture. So I really don't have an outstanding opinion on this. Do whatever you want to, really.