Peter Dexter
05-28-2013, 06:58 PM
What exactly is the purpose of emblazing a "watermark" across your photo? To me it seems like spraying graffiti over a work of architecture. Is the idea that with your "watermark" emblazoned on the photo no one can "steal" it off the internet and print it and sell it? Or use it elsewhere on the net and claim it as their own? I used to see these things scrawled across the middle of the subject, say a woman's belly in a model photograph but that practice seems to be disappearing thank heavens. These days they seem to be placed where they don't compromise the subject of the image such as off in a clean area with sky or something. I imagine that's for maximum legibility. I can see it if you want to use your photo as basically an advertising poster for your business or maybe if you just want to "sign" your photo for other online viewers to see but if the motive is supposed to be some kind of security measure for the photo it's self that seems completely silly. I mean what's to prevent an unscrupulous web surfer from just photoshopping your name off if he or she wants to use it on the net and doesn't feel your "watermark" adds to the aesthetics of the photo? And as far as I've seen no one ever posts high resolution print quality files on forums etc. It's just too cumbersome and the image is no more impressive than after being resized for posting so the issue of that kind of "theft" should be moot . So then what am I missing here? What important benefit do watermarkers gain in exchange for defacing their own photos?