# Signatures On Photos



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

I usually don't post over here but I have a suggestion about signing photographs/art.
Rusty may not remember, but a long while back, I suggested he not sign on the diagonal as it usually looks amateurish. Anyway back to my point.
You all work so hard on your composition, settings, and craft. Why just arbitrarily sign them in a large contrasting color. I understand copyright and that you are proud of your work, but an understated signature is better IMO
Try a smaller script or font and use a color like the ground it's on just a lighter or darker value. Just a suggestion.

I really enjoy all your work very much.


----------



## jasonp (Jun 27, 2007)

*agreed..*

Big obnoxious copyrights are annoying. I try and keep mine small. If people are going to steal them, they're going to steal them. Copyright sigs are usually pretty easy to remove. I've got a photo right now floating around the country on T-shirts and flyers that I've never recieved a dime for so I know its irritating. Digimarks are the best (IMO) but you have to pay a subscription fee.


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

Point and reason I really dont care to use signatures on my pics. Way I see it, once it hits the web it's free for all to copy and do as they please. As I said in another topic on here, if I were being paid for the pictures I take, I would have my signature on the picture. I do this for fun and to share my images with all....Well, Some of them anyway


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

So is this one of those "Laws were meant to be broken" sort of threads? Do you actually believe that once a picture hits the web it's free for all to copy and do with it as they please? I sure hope that is just the statement of a beginning photographer that just didn't really think things out.

Do you illegally download music or movies as well? Are those there for anyone to do what they want with them? I will answer that for you...NO they are not. Copyright laws are there for a reason and they should be followed. Of course there are always going to be those that don't and we can't change that. What is going to change though is how these people are discovered and dealt with. I am not talking about someone that likes a picture and decides to use it as their background or wallpaper on their computer, which they should not do by the way. I am talking about people stealing your work and making out like it is theirs and selling it and making money that is rightfully yours. It's stealing and it's illegal and it cannot be tolerated. 

There is some extremely powerful software programs and search engines being developed right now that will be able to find digital images on the web and tell you where they are, who is using them, and how. This is only being developed because of people not wanting to follow the rules and thinking that stealing is ok. It is not ok and should not be talked about as if it is. This is not just my opinion. It is the federal government's opinion as well and at least here on a photography forum we have to stand up for our rights and not tolerate even a hint that doing otherwise is ok.
James


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

i agree with kenny. an overstated signature and copyright mark detracts from a good photo.

i also agree that, if you really want your work to be secure and protected, the www isn't the place for it to be. on the web, the question really isn't should people steal photos, movies, music, etc, (of course, they shouldn't), the question is, will they?


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

On another note, I've always thought it was funny when fellow artists would copyright their work when they had not actually EVER sold a piece.


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

I agree with what you are saying James.


----------



## Danglefoot (Nov 21, 2004)

*Well, Yes they will !*

GN I agree with you about stealing. MC to answer your question, Yes they will. The companys (people) that are writing these programs to stop copywrite infringments(sp?) are the same people that write programs that go around the programs. They write the programs at work then go home and write the program to bypass the block and sell it on the internet under another name. After all they know how to go around their own program. They get paid twice.

Sad but true.


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

As it stands now, your work is copyrighted as soon as you create the image. You do not have to put a signature or copyright symbol on the photo at all.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

Donnie Hayden said:


> Point and reason I really dont care to use signatures on my pics. Way I see it, once it hits the web it's free for all to copy and do as they please. As I said in another topic on here, if I were being paid for the pictures I take, I would have my signature on the picture. I do this for fun and to share my images with all....Well, Some of them anyway


Well Donnie I have to say that's one of the bravest statements I've seen made on this forum ever.  (and I respect what you do with yours, but your attitude may change in time).

James is right about the copyright. It's my image whether it's watermarked or not, but by using a watermark I feel I've taken an additional step to let people know that it's not theirs to use as they want. The size of the watermark should be up to the author and yes bigger ones are more distracting. I do decrease th size of mine on the prints I sell.

Remember there are people making a living at this as well. Is it fair we undercut their livelihood?

Anyone here remember Cutter's deer image that got hotlinked? Now that was funny. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

Maybe I should have worded it different. I reread it and it didnt come out right. Sorry for the confusion guys. Rusty, Can you just delete that please. 

Again, I do apologize.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Donnie Hayden said:


> Maybe I should have worded it different. I reread it and it didnt come out right. Sorry for the confusion guys. Rusty, Can you just delete that please.
> 
> Again, I do apologize.


Deleting it now would mean that those posts that followed it would not make sense.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

I surely don't worry about my pictures once they hit the net. Legally they may me mine but realistically they just became public property. 
(Massive edit or I'd be banned from this forum..)


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Pictures I post here are linked back to my flickr site. Everything that goes up there is low res and not anything I would sell of give to anyone as art. I want the sig and © notice on the photo's there to be highly visible so people don't use them for personal use. Also, if they blog my photos usuing the smaller versions flickr makes available, a large sig and email address is still visible to blog readers so they know the source if they want originals. I've gotten lot's of request from people and fans of the things I shoot who view my flickr site asking to purchase stuff, and I oblige them with a prettier high res version of the image less the ugly sigs.


----------



## tilkomatic81 (Jun 14, 2008)

The best protection you can have is posting them at a low resolution (without the original it's impossible to improve the quality) and keeping the originals to yourself. If you must must a copyright sign on it, either make it embossed on the image to where it's large and semi-transparent, or lower the opacity of it to where it covers a large portion of the image. I'm media graduate and telling you from experience as to what is the hardest to remove. Things in the corners or only cover a small portion are easily removed or cropped out with Photoshop. Just a suggestion for those of you who want to keep your images to yourself.


----------



## TexasCityDave (Mar 11, 2005)

Interesting thread.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

One advantage to taking crappy pictures, nobody wants them..


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Well Dang....I shouldnt have anything to worry about then:biggrin:


Arlon said:



> One advantage to taking crappy pictures, nobody wants them..


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

my reasoning for signatures is simple really. i sign what i think is worthy of my signature and that is not everything that i post online, but it is most. i am doubly careful where i store my photos online and i ensure that my storage places are private.

i have copyright of everything i take a photo of, proof is in the exif of each image.

everything i write for online sites has the safety of copyright date of the date i post online.

the hard part is chasing up whoever steals my photos or my writing. one website chases up thieves for me. the rest, well, i don't bother. i am still growing too fast as a writer and photographer that i can look back at things i did a month ago and clearly see changes i would make to improve what i've done.

my theory is that whatever is online is vulnerable to theft, no matter who posts it or where it is posted. it costs megabucks to fight to punish the thieves and i don't have megabucks.

as for putting up photos here with signatures. a few i will put on slap dash, but most of my sigs are purposely put exactly where and how they are for a specific reason. 

placement is often chosen to be least distracting, but not always.

colour is often chosen to be either black or white. stark. in your face. obvious. but not always. sometimes i'll turn the opacity down.

i'll also suggest to others that they add their signature to their work. it's their work. it's their right to be proud of their work. it's good to be conscious and aware that others are looking at their work, the reminder is there every time they put their signature on their images.

rosesm


----------

