Do I need to watermark and copyright pictures given to a client?
- Thread starter gerfoto
- Start date
Now, this is what I have seen and read about, but its up to you and the client. For proof's it seems to be ok to leave the watermark, but for the actual delivery you really want to remove it.
copyright, you want to make sure thats in the EXIF data.
With this said, like Sparky mentioned its up to you.
copyright, you want to make sure thats in the EXIF data.
With this said, like Sparky mentioned its up to you.
If the shoot is "work for hire" then the client is paying for the image. This could give the client full ownership of the image and you may only get a credit line for authorship. Depends on what the contract stipulates for usage rights. You can give exclusive concept for one year then bring your copyright back home, or restrict usage in some other way. Always reserve the right to use the image in a portfolio or show.
Exactly how I handle it. My proofs are always watermarked, but once the client pays for the pics, I remove the watermark and provide them with a "release to print" up to a certain size. Think about it... a family hires me for portraits as they want to display their family at work, around the house, etc. They don't want to display my watermark.
Even so, I choose to make my watermark as unobtrusive as possible, but still evident, even on the proofs. That way, those few folks that contract me can see the true feel of the photo. After that, it just helps keep honest folks honest, and when I tag folks on facebook for their proofs, gives me a little advertisement to everyone who sees.
Exactly how I handle it. My proofs are always watermarked, but once the client pays for the pics, I remove the watermark and provide them with a "release to print" up to a certain size. Think about it... a family hires me for portraits as they want to display their family at work, around the house, etc. They don't want to display my watermark.
Even so, I choose to make my watermark as unobtrusive as possible, but still evident, even on the proofs. That way, those few folks that contract me can see the true feel of the photo. After that, it just helps keep honest folks honest, and when I tag folks on facebook for their proofs, gives me a little advertisement to everyone who sees.
Many Thanks, Pretzel
wud
Senior Member
The way I do it, is the client pays for 1-1,5 hour of shooting, this includes +- 10 images (edited and I choose) resized to use for the internet. The print files they order through my gallery and pay for this separately.
For the web size images I place my logo, if they want it without logo, its double up on the price.
On the print files, I never use the logo.
I do this because I am new in the business and I need the advertising, and I know and see how many who forgets to credit the photographer.
This proof thing... maybe I should do it sometime but so far, no one complained about me just delivering those images I think are the best.
For the web size images I place my logo, if they want it without logo, its double up on the price.
On the print files, I never use the logo.
I do this because I am new in the business and I need the advertising, and I know and see how many who forgets to credit the photographer.
This proof thing... maybe I should do it sometime but so far, no one complained about me just delivering those images I think are the best.
I think you're still confused as to copyright. You technically don't have a choice. You have a copyright on every image you take as soon as it's recorded on your memory card (or the shutter closes, if you shoot film). That's automatic.
What you provide your clients with is rights to your copyrighted images. This is best done in writing if you are going to allow your client to make their own prints, post them on the internet, etc. You still own the copyright, they simply are provided with certain rights to reproduce your work. The rights may be merely to allow them to print them. You might allow them to post them on the internet. But you can also stipulate that they may not edit your work (beyond simple cropping and rotating, etc.). This way, you can prevent someone turning your images into a sick, gross-looking over-processing, PhotoShop'd vomit-inducing piece of crap they call 'art'.
Now, there's two basic levels of copyright: The automatic type and really has no legal force behind it. If you are infringed, there's not a lot you can really do with your copyright. Showing that you have the original dated file or whatever has NO legal authority. What you really must have is a Registration from the US Copyright Office. As per law, infringement cases are a federal matter, and handled in federal courts. There is no state, county, local or 'small claims' for copyright infringement. Federal law dictates federal court system. And without a proper USCO registration number, no lawyer is even going to consider your case.
Is it worth registering your images? Depends on how much legal protection you think you need.
Ohh i see, I thought when i said "Copyrighted" was the setting you do on your Nikon. So, let's say i take a senior photoshoot. Besides signing the model release is anything extra that I need for the client, so he cannot alter the photos i gave ? Nooo my images are not worth registering, they are not like National Geographic.
You can insert Copyright information on many Nikon bodies, but that has nothing to do with the legal aspects of US Copyright Law. The only thing it may affect is it can strengthen an infringement case should it go to trial.
A copy of your Copyright policy should be included in all your paperwork each client receives. This should spell out specifically what the client is allowed and not allowed to do with your images. For instance, let's say you want to provide your clients with a CD containing all the keepers from a shoot. You want them to be able to take the images to any place and print them, so that should be stated. If you want to allow them to, say, rotate, crop etc., that should be stated as well. You will also allow them to post them on their Facebook page, etc. as well.
But you may want to specify they can't do to, or with, the images. The last thing you want is a lovely girl's senior portraits to be smashingly fantastic, only to have her boyfriend edit them in a drug-induced frenzy of applying so many ugly presets that people think YOU'RE on drugs. Nor do you want your image to be plastered on a billboard about teen birth control.
And having NG-quality images is NOT a requirement to apply for a proper USCO registration of the images. They do not judge your images as that's not their job. It's done merely to protect your work as the creator of it. A classic example is the Alberto Diaz Gutiérrez's image of Argentine revolutionist Che Geuvara. Don't recognize the name? Just Google it and you'll find the most infringed image in history.
A copy of your Copyright policy should be included in all your paperwork each client receives. This should spell out specifically what the client is allowed and not allowed to do with your images. For instance, let's say you want to provide your clients with a CD containing all the keepers from a shoot. You want them to be able to take the images to any place and print them, so that should be stated. If you want to allow them to, say, rotate, crop etc., that should be stated as well. You will also allow them to post them on their Facebook page, etc. as well.
But you may want to specify they can't do to, or with, the images. The last thing you want is a lovely girl's senior portraits to be smashingly fantastic, only to have her boyfriend edit them in a drug-induced frenzy of applying so many ugly presets that people think YOU'RE on drugs. Nor do you want your image to be plastered on a billboard about teen birth control.
And having NG-quality images is NOT a requirement to apply for a proper USCO registration of the images. They do not judge your images as that's not their job. It's done merely to protect your work as the creator of it. A classic example is the Alberto Diaz Gutiérrez's image of Argentine revolutionist Che Geuvara. Don't recognize the name? Just Google it and you'll find the most infringed image in history.