Removing watermark from photo
- Thread starter saracen
- Start date
Is this photo one that was taken of you by a company like 'Venture'. You should know that a lot of these companies make their money by retaining the rights to these images so that they are the only ones who can enlarge or frame them for you. If this is the case then this is a legitimate practice and you would have been required to sign a form giving them rights to these images.
In this case if you remove the watermark and use the images you are infringing on their copyright and technicaly breaking the law despite the fact that you are in the picture! Annoying I know but that's how it is.
If I have gone off on one and this is not the case then I would be happy to help you remove the watermark (providing there are no kids in the pictures)
In this case if you remove the watermark and use the images you are infringing on their copyright and technicaly breaking the law despite the fact that you are in the picture! Annoying I know but that's how it is.
If I have gone off on one and this is not the case then I would be happy to help you remove the watermark (providing there are no kids in the pictures)
Upvote
0
I shoot wedding s for a living, and we sometimes we watermark images. Just because you are the subject of the image, and you paid the photographer to shoot it, doesn't give you rights to remove the watermark or print the image etc.
below is the text that descibes the way we see copyright, you may see that there are a range of reasons that a photograher needs to prevent image distribution
____________________________
Copyright
In the main there are 4 types of relevant copyright issues relating to my work as a social or wedding photographer:
- Reproductive copyright
- Outright copyright
- Model rights
- Venue copyright
Copyright is a bit boring, but it is still important. Copyright is designed to protect the photographer, event organisers and the subjects
Please ensure you consider these four issues before any photographer you hire takes a photograph
Specifically for weddings:
As a matter of course, unusually I give the bride and groom reproductive copyright, which is signed over to them, for any images included in an album, DVD slide show, or any individual prints purchased by themselves. Normally the outright copyright remains with me (the photographer). I supply a CD or DVD containing the digital image files
Only the bride and groom (together) have the option to negotiate at any point for either the entire reproductive copyright (includes images not in an album), or the outright copyright
The actual fine details of any copyright is defined in writing in the contract that is signed before the wedding
For any other events:
Copyright is dealt with on an event-by-event basis; the event coordinators can purchase a reproductive copyright, or an outright copyright as required
The actual detail of any copyright is defined in the contract that is signed before the event. After the event, only the named event coordinator (or organisation) may negotiate with me regarding the copyright, regardless of the individuals that might be included in the images taken from the event
Reproductive copyright
The exact details will be defined in a written, signed contract, but broadly a reproductive copyright gives the bearer the right to have an image printed, in any way, for any private use that is not commercial
This would not give the bearer the right to sell the images to the press or a magazine for example, or have the images reproduced in any paid for document. Neither would it give the right of distribution of the images (on the internet or television for example)
This would however give the bearer the right to pass the image to an artist and have an oil painting made from the image, or print an image to use in a private album or hang on the wall etc.
Outright copyright
The exact details will be defined in a written, signed contract, but broadly an outright copyright gives the bearer the right to use the images, negatives, photographs or digital files in any way the bearer sees fit. Unless specifically negotiated, this remains with myself, the photographer. This may be re-negotiated after the event as required
Model rights
Weddings and events have many attendees, and as a photographer I have to use the working assumption that any images taken have the individual model rights signed over to me (in terms of both reproductive and outright copyright). This means that individual attendees at the event will need to negotiate with the event organiser (or bride and groom) who then negotiates with me (the photographer) if they require any additional model rights.
The bride and groom, or event organiser is responsible both letting attendees know there is a professional photographer present, and for letting me know of any individual in not to be photographed before I take a photograph
Named buildings with specific copyright issues
The London Eye (for example) is a structure, which cannot be photographed and reproduced without permission. I make the working assumption that any venue that I am asked to take photographs in has given the permission to the event organiser, and that the copyright for any images remains with me, unless otherwise negotiated
The bride and groom or event organiser is responsible for obtaining that permission (if required at all) before the photographer takes a photograph. If you are unsure ask your church or venue if there are any specific issues in this area. Invariably there are no issues at all; sometimes there is an issue over a particular building or specific object
Prints
Prints sold online have exactly the same copyright stipulations on them as any other photographs taken by myself; they may not be scanned, reproduced, distributed or sold without my express permission
_____
Things to note
- Different photographers operate with differing sets of principles
- The photographer has to protect the third party rights of artworks and architecture, and in some instances children and vulnerable adults
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
P.O.D. covers the key issues here... The photograph is subject to the provisions of The Copyright designs and Patents Act 1988, a copy of which you'll find online quite easily.
Unless you actually took the photograph or have the written permission of the copyright holder (probably the photographer) then what you propose doing may well be illegal. And the consequences, should you be proposing to use the picture commercially, could be very serious indeed.
An Edinburgh removals firm recently faced legal costs in excess of £25,000 for the unlicensed use of a stock image on their website. this was down to simple incomptetence on the part of their web designer and AFAIK in that case there was no attempt to actually circumvent any warnings or the like that the image was copyright. But actually removing a watermark as you propose could be seen by the court as evidence of flagrancy, and actually make matters much much worse in that the copyright holder could seek extra damages...
I'm also personally aware of a tradesman who used a rogue web designer to build his site who did the same thing. Cost him in excess of £15K! Don't be tempted to dismiss the dangers here!
...Probably cheaper to hire a photographer and have a nice picture done of yourselves!
Upvote
0
If someone pays you to shoot the images, surely you hand the copyright over to them so they can do what they want with their own images?
Unless you're referring to the sample images before they pay up fully.
Upvote
0
That's what I thought...been involved in a similar sort of case recently...
I'd thought someone was looking for a short cut...
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #11
Hi guys, thanks for your replies.
Can i add that we ( family ) paid a hefty price ( well into the £000's ) to have them taken ( photographer took 215 pic of us all together and seperates )
We are paying additional costs to have some of them printed and framed from the same photographer for my parents, in-laws etc.
However, there are 2 or 3 we are not wanting printed but my kids would like to use them for thier Fbook profiles, hence the reason of my initial question.
I have Corel, but it its easy enough to get photoshop if thats the software required to take off the watermark of the 3 pics.
Can i add that we ( family ) paid a hefty price ( well into the £000's ) to have them taken ( photographer took 215 pic of us all together and seperates )
We are paying additional costs to have some of them printed and framed from the same photographer for my parents, in-laws etc.
However, there are 2 or 3 we are not wanting printed but my kids would like to use them for thier Fbook profiles, hence the reason of my initial question.
I have Corel, but it its easy enough to get photoshop if thats the software required to take off the watermark of the 3 pics.
Upvote
0
Regretably it would still be highly illegal to use the images in the way you have just described. You should review the terms of your contract as it doesn't really matter if you paid £10 or £10million for the photos to be taken, if the photographer's t&c's say that he owns the images then he owns the images.
Check to see if you are allowed to use the images in the facebook context if the watermark remains intact, that may be your best bet. Or...you could infringe his copyright and risk it....
Check to see if you are allowed to use the images in the facebook context if the watermark remains intact, that may be your best bet. Or...you could infringe his copyright and risk it....
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
Not necessarily. Copyright's a fairly complex thing, and even in a commercial context it's likely the content producer will retain some degree of control over the material and how it's used.... Extracting a segment of video from a DVD for instance and re-editing/re-encoding it into something else will probably produce a result that will reflect badly on the original producer... So it's something that every legitimate pro producer I know EXCLUDES from the licence the end user gets...
And I know many social photographers depend on print/reprint revenues for a large part of their margin. Depends on individual attitudes of course, but I could seem some photographers on discovering unpaid images on Facebook heading to the builders yard to buy a ton of bricks and an afternoon's crane hire!
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
Have you looked on the back of the paperwork? Or at his T&Cs?
Doesn't really matter anyway because it's actually the Copyright Designs and Patents act 1988 (i.e. the law of the land) that says he owns the images! Because they're domestic portraits there's a limit to what he can do with them... But he still owns them!
Upvote
0
As I outlined there are a range of third party copyright, commercial and ethical reasons for staying in control of the copyright. What I do and what another photographer does will be 2 different things, depending on what I am shooting, and what image is released. However i a clinet asked for a few images for face book, I would supply a few, formatted in the right file type
Example.. I shoot 1000 images, I quickly proof them, pop them on line. Are they ready yet - No, when an order is placed, we then spend extra time on the image, and produce a full sized commercially acceptable image. In other words I control the quality
Second scenario.. I shoot your wedding, one of your geusts is a A-list celeb. I get a barrage of "you cant do this and you cant do that" I release the images to you, you fall out with the celeb, and I get sued, when you plaster the image all over the place
Third scenario.. I shoot a black tie ball. I can command £20 an image online, and I usually sell 100 images online. If everyone rips the images off me, I loose £2000 turnover
Fourth scenario. I give you the full high-res file, and you go to Aldi to get a canvas printed. In 10 years, you think its great, everyone else thinks its crap. when the ask who the photographer was, I look like a numpty
Here are 2 images: http://www.placeofdesign.com/babytop1000.jpg and http://www.placeofdesign.com/babytops1000a.jpg
The first image is an example of what happens if you open an image in Photoshop, and re-save it, with the default settings. The second is when you re-save it specifically for web, using the correct settings. My problem as a professional with clients who are clueless editing images is that they invariabley use the first set of settings, and Nuke the color in the image, making me look useless
Last edited:
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
Aaaaaaah but i do have legit Corel suite which i purchased last year !
Quite so, I'm sure, but I think the figurative eyebrow was raised at your apparent preparedness to purchase PhotoShop, something that costs several hundred pounds in legitimate form, to cicumvent the photographer's watermarks...
Why not just pay the man? :|
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Saracen,
why don't you explain to the Photog why you want them, and see if you can get a goodwill (almost?) freebie of say, 3 kids pics, 125px by 125px for web use?
If you have spent that much and you 'ask nice' I'm sure there must be a chance that he will be OK about it. Good customer service really, for no real loss.
Got to be worth a go?
(Or you could follow the surreal route suggested and "go online and buy the photos", presumably from iStockWTF.com).
why don't you explain to the Photog why you want them, and see if you can get a goodwill (almost?) freebie of say, 3 kids pics, 125px by 125px for web use?
If you have spent that much and you 'ask nice' I'm sure there must be a chance that he will be OK about it. Good customer service really, for no real loss.
Got to be worth a go?
(Or you could follow the surreal route suggested and "go online and buy the photos", presumably from iStockWTF.com).
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
Quite apart from the fact he's trying to edit pictures of his own family that he had taken by a professional photographer.... but hasn't paid for prints of...
The sites you're talking about are a REALLY dumb way of acquiring photos for a web page! If you read the T&Cs very few of them have any proper controls over copyright. the sites themselves give no warranty in this respect. And the net result is you can wind up paying for 'licenses' that are of no legal worth whatsoever!!!
Upvote
0
T
TFGtv
People are aye up for a 'bargain'. And they often don't look beyond the price ticket sadly... There are good reasons why professional photographs cost what they cost. And much has to do with the way the rights to those photographs is managed...
These bucket sites are dangerous both for the mug punters who buy for them and those who are silly enough to supply them. Many are based overseas and thus 'untouchable' by the UK courts.
Upvote
0
hahahah don't make me laugh paying hundreds of pounds in the year of 2009 for a photographer!!! you must be joking!!! and then having the greedy photographer watermark them!!! buy yourself a flipping digital camera for £100, the difference in quality is not that big!!! photographing is a job that should have died when the digital cameras were introduced...
just pay some geek £5 to take out the watermarks and be smarter next time and take the pictures yourself
err excuse me! Your telling me the difference in quality between a professional photographer and someone using a digital camera is small. I think maybe you should speak to some of the photographers on here. They would have a few words to say about that!
Upvote
0
Think you will find the person who made this comment, is about 15 years old and still has a lot of growing to do - best to just ignore!
Upvote
0
Trust me, although we have all the gear, lots of it - it is what you do with it that counts. Some of my best and fave photography I took with a range of cameras ranging from Pinhole, box brownie, compact, film SLR etc..
I often turn up to a wedding and the guests have "better" cameras than I do, however, they never move them off auto mode, and you can tell from "how they shoot", and "what they shoot!, they are usually clueless
I often turn up to a wedding and the guests have "better" cameras than I do, however, they never move them off auto mode, and you can tell from "how they shoot", and "what they shoot!, they are usually clueless
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Wiki on Bert Hardy:
"Having written an article for amateur photographers suggesting you didn't need an expensive camera to take good pictures, Hardy staged a carefully posed photograph of two young women sitting on railings above a breezy Blackpool promenade using a Box Brownie."
Which is why, on the whole profs don't talk about kit, amateurs do. It's the eye not the tool.
(Given the picture I should probably rephrase that)
Upvote
0
Sweet. made me smileWiki on Bert Hardy:
"Having written an article for amateur photographers suggesting you didn't need an expensive camera to take good pictures, Hardy staged a carefully posed photograph of two young women sitting on railings above a breezy Blackpool promenade using a Box Brownie."
Which is why, on the whole profs don't talk about kit, amateurs do. It's the eye not the tool.
(Given the picture I should probably rephrase that)
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #37
Dawg, thanks, i'll speak to the foti chappie
Also, perhaps you have just touched on a...well as it appears....a touchy subject ?
If i bought a reasonable digital camera, say a 9 or 10 mp off the shelf and chose the correct setting and of course got the lighting correct, i could get the same results. Some of the pro's also do some tweaking with the likes of photoshop - i believe. No probs, i can do that.
When we had out photos taken the guy told me its not really the amount of mega pixel that counts but its the lens. Now it was a big lens and in the price range of a couple of K. So can i ask the pro photographers if indeed the results are in the lens ? Remember im refering to taking pictures of people and not distance shots of landscapes as im sure there is a big difference from a off the shelf digital cam and one with a whopping big lens the pro's use.
Also, perhaps you have just touched on a...well as it appears....a touchy subject ?
If i bought a reasonable digital camera, say a 9 or 10 mp off the shelf and chose the correct setting and of course got the lighting correct, i could get the same results. Some of the pro's also do some tweaking with the likes of photoshop - i believe. No probs, i can do that.
When we had out photos taken the guy told me its not really the amount of mega pixel that counts but its the lens. Now it was a big lens and in the price range of a couple of K. So can i ask the pro photographers if indeed the results are in the lens ? Remember im refering to taking pictures of people and not distance shots of landscapes as im sure there is a big difference from a off the shelf digital cam and one with a whopping big lens the pro's use.
Upvote
0
Framing:Dawg, thanks, i'll speak to the foti chappie
Also, perhaps you have just touched on a...well as it appears....a touchy subject ?
If i bought a reasonable digital camera, say a 9 or 10 mp off the shelf and chose the correct setting and of course got the lighting correct, i could get the same results. Some of the pro's also do some tweaking with the likes of photoshop - i believe. No probs, i can do that.
When we had out photos taken the guy told me its not really the amount of mega pixel that counts but its the lens. Now it was a big lens and in the price range of a couple of K. So can i ask the pro photographers if indeed the results are in the lens ? Remember im refering to taking pictures of people and not distance shots of landscapes as im sure there is a big difference from a off the shelf digital cam and one with a whopping big lens the pro's use.
Shooting angle... where you shot it from (floor, waist, eye level, steps, window upstairs) - Pro's tend to mix this up and make the effort to move when needed
Framing / composition: understanding things like rule of thirds, composition, where to place things in a image to make the eye flow around it. Understanding when and how to break the rules of composition, when to shoot cropped in, when to shoot with space. Shooting knowing the print will be framed and mounted
Exposure: understanding and using all the tools in the box - tripod, monopod, ISO, EV compensation, Shutter speed, aperture of lens stop. Balancing all of these can determine noise (or lack of), depth of field, exposure, bokeh, motion blur
Exposure: using additional lighting - e.g. flash, and balancing flash with ambient. This is used for fill flash calculations. When understood fully, this opens a range of creative options, such as overpowering the sun, or sky. We routinely use off camera flash at weddings - at which point, every setting on the camera is manually set
Exposure - using a light meter effectively - cameras really can screw up exposure. On top of that - understanding the dynamic range of a scene vs the dynmic range of a camera immediately means you understand that a wedding image (is often) a compromise shot. (to get white wedding dress and black suit with detail in both is a challenge). Camera light meters are easily fooled, and on auto mode often screw everything up. A professional knows this and injects some judgement based on understanding of metering, the actual scene, what is possible, what is recoverable
White Balance - we both set it, and also gell flashes to match existing lighting, and then manually set white balance to suit. we can also gell flashes to warm light up etc.
No win situations
With all the gear, often the professional is presented with a no-win situation - it is how you deal with the situation that sorts things out. Shooting quietly in a dark church, with a grumpy vicar, which wont let you use flash is one of these situations
People management
Wedding photography especially is a lot to do with personality. Whilst the photographic head is crunching exposure, noise, composition, flash calculations, the vocal outward image needs to be organising everyone and keeping everyone onside. This is the bit that really makes or breaks the whole shoot
Software
We aim to get the image in-camera, but software is just like the old darkroom we used to use. one can resucue an image using software, but if you have done the job right, you ought to be just perfecting them. Skills using RAW conversion software / Photoshop can help immensely in the "no win siutuations" mentioned above"
Lenses
lenses are just a tool in the box, and while we may like expensive ones, one of the most common ones we use, is in fact very cheap. Knowing what lens to use where and when is more imortant
Knowing when to shoot a duplicate
we sometimes shoot things several times to account for blinks etc..
Processes
You wouldn't believe the "non photographic" systems we have that ensure images are safe. Anal backup routine, safes, off site backup... its all part of being a professional
Upvote
0
My children compete in sports events where they get taken by pro photographers. I find that pro photographers are very obliging when we ask them for the original tiff (or similar) of a photo that we really like. They usually charge a lot less than they'd charge for big printout because their costs are lower. They just tend to want a verbal assurance that we're not going to use the photo for commercial purposes ourselves.
But that said, we quite often buy 5x7s or 6x8s anyway, because the quality is so much higher than anything we can print for the mantlepiece or album ourselves. Their printer is properly calibrated and high quality with the correct matching paper and non-fade inks.
But that said, we quite often buy 5x7s or 6x8s anyway, because the quality is so much higher than anything we can print for the mantlepiece or album ourselves. Their printer is properly calibrated and high quality with the correct matching paper and non-fade inks.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
