Nice, a Nikon user! .

In regards of this quite intriguing subject, I, personally, dislike watermarks because I feel they just destroy my work.

However, if someone does steal a picture and tries to sell it, I have the original RAW(NEF) files to prove original ownership of the artwork.

So, assuming people KNOW the consequences of stealing, you might as well show your art proudly (no watermark), let em try steal it and if they succeed, show them you are game with a BEAUTIFUL lawsuit just to make an example for others to come .

--
Let us be realistic...let us find impossible

I think that the best solution I have found is to put a watermark on, but reduce the opacity so that it can only just be seen a little bit, or even not at all unless you look for it.

I usually put a logo at the bottom in full opacity, and then a small watermark somewhere important that can barely be seen, but would be hard to get rid of

--
-So says Adrian Paul Blake, The Laird of Glencairn

Watermark it ALL. It won't keep people from stealing it, but if you ever have to sue them it will show intent esp. if they actually removed YOUR watermark.


It will piss off collectors & many people feel it defaces the image (I was one of them, until several of my photos/paintings images were stolen off this site), but many of us will understand it is a necessary evil & just see the beauty behind the mark.

Getting your stolen artwork removed from other sites is not easy.
Read this journal [link]

--
Malapropism is my fiend.

watermarks are an ugly thing the better ones let a image look like a cd cover but i guess in most cases this wasn't intended

you are right art exists to be seen, locked down in the cellar a film negative is just some piece of coloured plastic. a picture or even art it just becomes for a viewer

not a solution but also a part of the thing... photos i consider as not as good to be art in the first place but that could serve good to extract textures i have a dedicated stock account...there i give permission to use my art, if not for commercial purpose.

i share your point that the most important thing, as a sign of respect would be to ask the owner and perhaps accept a no. but things have changed, people have changed.

what it is like with copyrights etc. when you have done something outstanding there are two things that can be stolen. the image itself can be used(like seen above there are software technics to prevent) and the idea. i m not talking about a building we may shoot. but for example in the section of arranged and conceptual photos there are some examples that are like siblings and i couldn't tell you if A stole the idea of B or both from C.
because in the digital age art is nothing material like in former ages there is always the question what they steal?
if you earn money with your art, a theft may be real crucial for you...otherwise its something like a damage to ones pride or ego.

yes art is owned by its creator and yes art once published belongs to the people, at least to watch.

perhaps some kind of weird thoughts but i haven't had a coffee yet

--
"l'art est mort" or maybe undead, btw zombis! don't scream!

I agree with those who counsel you that a watermark defaces your work an has very little real impact on people who want to copy your work. It is true that placing your work anywhere on the Internet implicates a certain loss of control. But placing your work in a real gallery risks just as much, if not more. Anyone can walk in and snap a picture; the gallery owner or the staff at the gallery would be able to scan the original; and if its the only copy, it could be simply stolen off the wall! At least on the web you can show the image in a fashion that isn't useful to a commercial level rip off. You can't make decent prints or copies that would sell for any real amount of money off of an 800 X 350 pixel file at 72 dpi.

--
Ripples in a pond to an unseen shore

I read your interesting Journal entry about watermarking and the comments that were made. Even I have had a couple of my DA pictures taken without my permission. Because one was being sold by a person who was actually using my DA account name on the site, I contacted the site to let them know that the individual had stolen my picture. The site followed up and banned them. It is too bad that the few make it bad for the many who are ethical.

There have been a few other DA users who I'm familiar with who have had their artwork taken without their permission. Here are a couple that you might want to contact about their experiences:





Hopefully, you can come up with a system that does not ruin your pictures. The default DA watermark, because of its huge size, can certainly destroy what was once a lovely photo, painting, or drawing. Although it keeps most people from cloning out the watermark, it also keeps others from admiring your work. The embedded hidden watermark with notification certainly sounds good (if it works as advertised), along with a discreet Photoshop-type signature on the photograph itself. There's really no way to totally protect artwork other than hiding it away in one's basement .