# Watermark



## monkey44 (Feb 5, 2018)

I'm making up several watermarks with different levels of opacity, depends on background.

Is there a way to batch insert a WM into a group of images using PSE 13 ?? I have a lot, and can size each group the same, and do portrait and landscape separate - so size will not affect it. At least I think it won't if all are same prior to inserting WM ... any advice here? Thanks B

I also have DPP, of course, but as I see it, no way to add watermark with DPP ... especially not in batch.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2018)

monkey44 said:


> I'm making up several watermarks with different levels of opacity, depends on background.
> 
> Is there a way to batch insert a WM into a group of images using PSE 13 ?? I have a lot, and can size each group the same, and do portrait and landscape separate - so size will not affect it. At least I think it won't if all are same prior to inserting WM ... any advice here? Thanks B
> 
> I also have DPP, of course, but as I see it, no way to add watermark with DPP ... especially not in batch.



And the watermark is for? I used to do this, but then I realized nobody is going to steal my work (Sized for the web, not actual production.). If somebody did steal my work, I'd be flattered. I'm not a pro trying to get my name out there and I'm not sure a watermark is going to pull in new business if I were in business. There are millions of "John Doe Photography" watermarks out there.

Anyway, that doesn't answer your question. Just my thoughts on watermarks and those thoughts are only to be applied in my world.  It just fascinates me. Sometimes a watermark is far more interesting than the photos people place the watermarks on. 

Again, I am not knocking you. This is just the conclusion I have come to for my own photos. No watermarks for me. maybe somebody that makes a living at photography has a different perspective. I think the copyright info is embedded in the exif.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 6, 2018)

Hi CanonFanBoy. 
As can be seen from my shots on Flickr I’m a non watermark person too, I have thought about it but kind of came to the same conclusion as you, plus I have no idea how to make a watermark nor do I have the inclination to position it individually on thousands of shots to make them hard to steal without harming the content too much which I see as a problem for batch application. 
However exif is far more easily stripped than a watermark especially if the watermark is placed twice as one of our contributors does, once in plain sight and once in small scale most unobtrusively, you have to look real hard to find no2 and therefore probably wouldn’t after you reworked the shot to remove the obvious one. 
Assuming a watermark is placed to make simply cropping the shot unappealing then you would have to clone it out or something which might make it unappealing to “borrow” the shot, exif can easily be batch removed by most processing software real easy, tick the box before export! 
Batch processing would probably mean that the watermark would be in a preset location that would mean it did not impact the shot and therefore would probably equally easily batch crop without affecting most shots! 
Sorry to the O.P. for not being able to help with your question. 

Cheers, Graham. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making up several watermarks with different levels of opacity, depends on background.
> ...


----------



## jprusa (Feb 6, 2018)

One way is to make a brush out of a Watermark you have made , save as PNG and make a brush in PSE . I sure there is another way but I am not aware of it. Good luck


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 6, 2018)

Hi Graham!

I'd have to agree on the exif. I believe it is stripped out of photos I post to facebook, which are few and far between. I'm sure there are reasons for the watermarks for the pros. And the OP absolutely is a pro. I just get a chuckle when I see watermarks by amateurs like myself, and God forbid, even worse than I am. It's a strange phenomena to me.

On the other hand, I can remember an "Olan Mills" portrait of my daughter when she was a toddler (Did Olan Mills have a presence in the UK?). Years later we tried to have the photo reproduced and the business refused because of the Olan Mills watermark and copyright issues. I learned something that day. So in that case the watermark, I guess, did it's job. 

If I ever take a photo worth stealing (Not likely, ever) I think I will just use a single letter placed in a very small and obscure place in the photo that would take a magnifying glass to read.

Good to see you, Graham!



Valvebounce said:


> Hi CanonFanBoy.
> As can be seen from my shots on Flickr I’m a non watermark person too, I have thought about it but kind of came to the same conclusion as you, plus I have no idea how to make a watermark nor do I have the inclination to position it individually on thousands of shots to make them hard to steal without harming the content too much which I see as a problem for batch application.
> However exif is far more easily stripped than a watermark especially if the watermark is placed twice as one of our contributors does, once in plain sight and once in small scale most unobtrusively, you have to look real hard to find no2 and therefore probably wouldn’t after you reworked the shot to remove the obvious one.
> Assuming a watermark is placed to make simply cropping the shot unappealing then you would have to clone it out or something which might make it unappealing to “borrow” the shot, exif can easily be batch removed by most processing software real easy, tick the box before export!
> ...


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 6, 2018)

Thanks for the comments guys - yes, I agree with the idea that WM and other exif data can easily be removed ... and often mean very little, especially on the web or in digital applications.

One main concern tho, it keeping honest people honest, because we'll never keep the thieves honest ... and I've had numerous copies of my sports images "used" without permission. And, some because it was forwarded by other parties, and the venue believed it was public domain, or not copyright for whatever reason - so not always criminal or on-purpose misuse. 

On those times when I believe it appropriate, and place the WM, it's nearly invisible - very opaque, but enough that anyone looking - and that means legitimate editors etc, will see it. It becomes even more important for us 
- artists or journalists - as the digital world expands and every image or post is sent uncountable times to friends, family, acquaintances, and all over. So, some of us believe, and most of us should think this way, I hope - that we should get credit for our work whenever anyone enjoys it and for whatever reason.

At this point, we're setting up a new website, and will be expanding our reach - so, we will be sending out a variety of images to prospective companies, individuals, etc - not everyone of those will feel as responsible as we'd like ... it's just the nature of commerce today - again, the digital world has changed how photographers protect our work. 

Back to the question - we were hoping we could create this new WM and batch it into our releases - just as one small added protective. Otherwise, we skip that step, or spend hours individually placing WM. Not exactly sure which decision makes the most sense. Never easy, is it ?? Thx BD


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 6, 2018)

Good luck with the expansion!



monkey44 said:


> Thanks for the comments guys - yes, I agree with the idea that WM and other exif data can easily be removed ... and often mean very little, especially on the web or in digital applications.
> 
> One main concern tho, it keeping honest people honest, because we'll never keep the thieves honest ... and I've had numerous copies of my sports images "used" without permission. And, some because it was forwarded by other parties, and the venue believed it was public domain, or not copyright for whatever reason - so not always criminal or on-purpose misuse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 6, 2018)

Hi BD. 
You make some very good points especially keeping honest people honest. I had not really thought about it from that side. I would have thought someone here would be able to point you in the correct direction, I’m afraid it isn’t me though. 
Good luck with the expansion. 

Cheers, Graham. 



monkey44 said:


> Thanks for the comments guys - yes, I agree with the idea that WM and other exif data can easily be removed ... and often mean very little, especially on the web or in digital applications.
> 
> One main concern tho, it keeping honest people honest, because we'll never keep the thieves honest ... and I've had numerous copies of my sports images "used" without permission. And, some because it was forwarded by other parties, and the venue believed it was public domain, or not copyright for whatever reason - so not always criminal or on-purpose misuse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 6, 2018)

does this help?

https://www.visualwatermark.com/blog/2012/11/14/watermark-photoshop-elements/

This is for PSE 11 so I presume it will work in PSE 13


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 6, 2018)

I'm OOT at the moment, back on Friday - don't have PSE on this LT, but will try it when we return home. Will follow up and let you all know. I don't recall seeing this in PSE-13, but could just have missed it. thx


----------



## LDS (Feb 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And the watermark is for?



Actually, while the watermark won't stop people stealing your photos, could help you if you decide to go after them:

"Section 1202 of the U.S. Copyright Act makes it illegal for someone to remove your CMI [Copyright management information] from your photo to hide the infringement. The fines start at $2,500 and go to $25,000 in addition to attorneys’ fees and any damages for the infringement. You don’t have to register your photo in advance to recover under this statute. So, if possible, put your CMI as a watermark on your photo and in the metadata of your digital file (be careful that your CMI is not removed when using the “save for web” function)."

https://www.photoattorney.com/five-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-online-images/


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 9, 2018)

LDS said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > And the watermark is for?
> ...



Yes, I understand that copyright info and violations - my main goal is to keep honest folks honest - most web viewers believe anything on the web is public domain, when it really is not. So, putting the info in the image is one more step that helps us protect our work. Some don't care about that, but some do ... I'm one that takes copyright violations very seriously, especially violators that know it, and steal it anyway. 

Copyright belongs to the artist (writer, photographer, artist) immediately upon its creation. Whether you register it or not is irrelevant ... registering the copyright allows for greater penalties for violators and easier prosecution, but never stops any one that really wants it. 

It's like the law against burglary doesn't stop the crime, it only allows for penalties for those that burgle and get caught. Same with copyright laws.

Historically, it's always been relatively easy to protect your copyright, keep the film/slides safe. Nowadays, with all the digital art out there, it's nearly impossible once you let any image out of your direct control - and that too is nearly impossible today.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 9, 2018)

monkey44 said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Maybe there is a way to make fake RAW files but I am shure that keeping the RAW files and letting out only jpeg files with reduced quality (it's there because they are usually 8 bit) is a very good way to keep the originals away from others!


----------



## Talys (Feb 9, 2018)

There is another reason for a watermark. If you have a nice watermark, it can add to your finished image.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> There is another reason for a watermark. If you have a nice watermark, it can add to your finished image.



Yes. This is actually a good point. My wife watermarks her images with a very discrete and attractive signature. She isn't interested in protecting the image, but she shares a lot of images with fellow bird and nature photographers on twitter and it's a miniature business card that is a nice way to build a reputation and following.

Also, for those thinking a watermark will protect your image: unless it is an annoying and huge watermark, it's a very simple matter to remove a watermark with a healing brush, clone stamp or patch tool. So it really won't deter someone who wants to steal your image.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > There is another reason for a watermark. If you have a nice watermark, it can add to your finished image.
> ...



As time passes, my watermark gets smaller and smaller.

If anyone wanted to steal the picture, all they have to do is crop off the bottom 5 percent.... or put their own watermark on top of mine.... or healing brush....

The only other option is to protect it with a HUGE! watermark..... Besides, the odds of someone stealing one of my pictures is quite low


----------



## lion rock (Feb 10, 2018)

Nicely done Don.
I'd prefer no shadows with the watermark, too disruptive. I'm able to look pass the text.
Nice photo, too.
-r



Don Haines said:


> As time passes, my watermark gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> If anyone wanted to steal the picture, all they have to do is crop off the bottom 5 percent.... or put their own watermark on top of mine.... or healing brush....
> 
> The only other option is to protect it with a HUGE! watermark..... Besides, the odds of someone stealing one of my pictures is quite low


----------



## LDS (Feb 12, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Also, for those thinking a watermark will protect your image: unless it is an annoying and huge watermark, it's a very simple matter to remove a watermark with a healing brush, clone stamp or patch tool. So it really won't deter someone who wants to steal your image.



A watermark doesn't automatically protect your image, but may make easier to go after those who steal your images, because it means they may need to break even more laws and regulations. It's like a simple lock or a fence, easy to bypass, but those who do automatically break a law, and can't invoke a "mistake". Obviously, if you have no will to ever go after them, yes, the watermark may just become an ad/signature for your work.

Otherwise it is a layer of legal protection - just like when one licenses an image he or she establishes usage rights, and don't simply say "OK, use it at you discretion". Legal protection is not bomb-proof protection, but it could help one day.


----------

