Signing your Photo's

[andy153]

Just a few questions really - I suppose like many out there I look at other photographic web sites. I am trying to gauge members opinions about the following:
Do you find it acceptable for a photographer to place his name/website address or copyright notice anywhere on the image itself?
If it has to be displayed should this always be off image - in a border?
Have you ever seen a photograph where such a notice or signature does not drag the eye away from the image?
Apart from advertising is this practice ever justified?
Sorry, but this has become a bug bear of mine. It's a practice I hate and as someone who does the occasional judging - should I let it get to me? - I have to admit if I see it - marks are going down from the start -
I'm thinking of adding a poll to this post, would people be prepared to use one so I can gather results?

I have added a POLL with six choices - the poll will accept more than one answer if you think more than one question applies to you.

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by andy153

Just a few questions really - I suppose like many out there I look at other photographic web sites. I am trying to gauge members opinions about the following:
Do you find it acceptable for a photographer to place his name/website address or copyright notice anywhere on the image itself? only for advertising
If it has to be displayed should this always be off image - in a border? just don't do it
Have you ever seen a photograph where such a notice or signature does not drag the eye away from the image? No!
Apart from advertising is this practice ever justified? Not IMHO
Sorry, but this has become a bug bear of mine. It's a practice I hate and as someone who does the occasional judging - should I let it get to me? - I have to admit if I see it - marks are going down from the start -
I'm thinking of adding a poll to this post, would people be prepared to use one so I can gather results?

I'm with you Andy - why spoil an image with a distraction. Without going too far off topic I have the same feelings about most coloured borders - you end up looking at the border - not the image

Create the poll - but I think you know which way I'm voting

[Susan Green]

I agree that the logo spoils the picture, that's the point, that's what it should do. On some webs the logo or (c) is placed into the center. I have no problem with this.

Susan

[gordon g]

It depends on the purpose of the image - no problem with copyright marks on web images used as proofs or advertising, no problem with a hand-written signature on the border of a fine art print for sale. For an exhibition - not keen on either, and the border and framing should be an enhancement to the image, not a distraction.

[ABphoto]

As the repeated victim of copyright theft I'm afraid I eventually had no choice but to re-edit all of the images I display and add copyright info and logos. While I do agree it spoils the image I feel it is the only way to add a little protection. I have made every effort to minimise the impact but it is a difficult balance as it has to be imposing enough to discourage theft.

Unfortunately it is not workable to only mark the borders as this is far too easy to remove. Even the most basic user of Photoshop can crop the logos out and delete the EXIF date in seconds and suddenly it is untraceable, I have had far fewer problems since I started watermarking.

[andy153]

I understand the point about copyright theft for the internet, though there are more subtle ways of marking your work - My point was that I am seeing quite a bit of this spilling over into inter Club Prints and competition.

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by andy153

My point was that I am seeing quite a bit of this spilling over into inter Club Prints and competition.

That's a VERY different situation to web publishing. I understand your feelings a lot more now. Fully agree with the comments of ABphoto and sympathise, but there's no need for such marking in a physical print competition.

[Alexandra]

I also display and add copyright info and logo same reason as ABphoto, I try to place so will not be distracting.I wouldn't add if I enter a competition not that I've entered one no confidence in my work yet.

[nirofo]

Originally Posted by andy153

I understand the point about copyright theft for the internet, though there are more subtle ways of marking your work - My point was that I am seeing quite a bit of this spilling over into inter Club Prints and competition.

The problem with digital imaging on the web is it makes it very easy to copy, (steal) and manipulate the image. Theft of images from just about every web page you can think of is rife, all the online image storage web sites such as flikr, google, photobox etc, and yes worldphotographyforum suffer from it, some more so than others. It is very soon to be condoned by the British Government when their new bill goes through, so all your beautifull photographs, that you spent so much time and money producing will be fair game for anyone who wants to download them and use them commercially. I have no problem with anyone using a discreet copyright logo on their image, providing it doesn't detract attention from the images original impact, it may not stop determined theft, but at least it will show the image is copyright. In my opinion, if anyone who is asked to judge a competition is biased by their dislike of discreet copyright logos, then they should not be allowed to judge that competition. Obviously, if the logo is so obvious that it seriously detracts from the images impact, then the image should not be allowed and the entry owner informed. If this is the case then it should be made clear in the competition rules beforehand that only discreet copyright logos will be allowed.

nirofo.