Is watermarking photos worth it as a copyright deterrent?

Question

One of my images was used by a newspaper beyond the license terms and without the required credit. For future uploads, I'm wondering whether visible watermarking is an effective deterrent to misuse, especially since someone could potentially crop or remove it. Is watermarking worthwhile, and are there better steps photographers should take to protect their work?

metadata copyright workflow licensing watermarking

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

16y ago

user702 · Accepted 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.

Is watermarking photos worth it as a copyright deterrent?

2 Answers

Your Answer

Related Questions