Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?

On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.

I sign my prints in pencil. And I number them. Is that pretentious? Or
is it marketing?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
watermark across the face.

The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
is the better word.

A watermark that identifies the photographer is not pretentious. It
is the size and placement that can make it pretentious.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

C J Campbell christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers
watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad
photographer?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:55:14 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers
watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad
photographer?

To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
pretentiously.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=ytfw...ze=1&nostamp=1

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:55:02 -0500, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence
then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least
of the problem.


so, the watermark cause the poster to have at least one fan.

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave
scribbled:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod wrote:

It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.

if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it
be

If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self
confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said
watermark is the least of the problem.

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain

--
Frank ess

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess"
wrote:



Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave

Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
for drawing so many pompous remarkers?

When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain


Yep, don't worry twit,
It's done.
You won't irritate me anymore

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:08:50 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:55:14 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-02-07 09:20:16 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

C J Campbell christophercampbell wrote:
On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro said:

Hello there,

My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.

We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.

And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.

Any thoughts or advice about that?

sig

It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.

A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.

There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.

I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.

Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers
watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad
photographer?

To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
pretentiously.


....bravo the adverb! (Also the thought...).

cg