"Discussions" regarding visual watermarks; those lovely "embossed" copyright symbols, artist signatures and website listings you see on many artist portfolio images can be entertaining. Thomas Hawk has a particularly good rant discussion going in his blog "On Watermarks and Signatures" and his "You Are a Thief" motif is an excellent example of going over the top with a visual watermark. It looked like fun, so I made my own.

As Thomas Hawk points out the primary issue really comes down to overall purpose:

• As Thomas Hawk feels about it, are you like many just making "an advertisement for your work?"
• Are you using visual watermarks like "photo signatures to stop the 'photo thieves?'"

I believe most users of visual watermarks intend to be the latter and I think it’s a good idea, though dated. Most photographers I talk with distain using visual watermarks and only use them to prevent reposting of their images without permission. Alas, the removal of visual watermarks is no longer the domain of a competent Photoshop user. Anyone aware of the content aware filter (or a similar image editing tool) can remove most visual watermarks quickly.

So should you bother with visual watermarks? I’m coming around to the NO camp. Awhile back I sent a Digimarc for Images customer the link to a travel website that our search engine had found. The travel site had taken a number of their images shot around Greece. All of the "borrowed" images still had their visual watermark on them; a rather large logo with a web address. I know there are lots of misconceptions regarding copyright, but visually embedding all the copyright info does NOT provide or imply permission.

What's a photog to do? You want to share images, find new customers and not worry about if your images are being used or misused.

Thomas Hawk points out that Ansel Adams, Richard Avadon or William Eggleston don't have visual watermarks. Too bad most auteurs aren't as recognized as those bigshots. "Borrowing" from someone whose style and collection is well-known will most likely be noticed and reported. You need a lot of friends to provide you with that type of image search support.

Adding a visual watermark works best with honest people, but it can influence a reviewer's first impression. Thomas Hawk says he actually stopped following photographers using visual watermarks!

A solution that I'm not embarrassed to mention is Digimarc for Images. How did I know about that Grecian travel site? The Digimarc Search Service found it. The Digimarc for Images watermark is unlike the visual watermarks I've been writing about; it's covert. Woven imperceptibly (darn close to invisible) throughout the image, it makes pics locatable on the web using our reader tools or with the Digimarc Search Service.

Both subscription packages (Basic and Pro) are good deals, with the Pro offering the key Digimarc Search Service results. If, like myself, you are a bit of the Scottish (conservative with doling out cash), consider starting with the Basic subscription to get your images watermarked for web posting. Not every image uploaded will be taken and reposted. You could then upgrade to Pro the following year, in which access is available to any images found, including the previous year. Finding is one thing, but then getting paid is another! Don’t forget to copyright your images.

So what do you think about visual watermarks? Please share your opinion in the comments section below.