Photographer logo?

[florianbieler.de]

Seriously? This is Sal Cincotta?

No, he is not. Just stated that he got "inspired" by his logo or whatever.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.

(For the OP regarding copyright) I fully agree with the quote above as well as florianbieler's regarding the legality/need for a watermark.

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[nick2341]

Like a few others here, I'm a graphic designer first and photographer second. My current logo is fairly recent. I don't normally tag my images, but when I do I have a few ways of doing it. I try to keep it unobtrusive and place it where it makes sense. A lot of my images end up being used in design projects so sometimes placing my logo over them makes them look like a full on advertisement.

The tag looks small here, but it's all shrunk proportionally to not take up your whole screen.

 

[sleepnever]

The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.

I agree with your general statement. I have a good friend who is an IP/Patent attorney and he said its a friggen nightmare and that my best bet, is to put MY name with the year on my images. Then of course have a copy of the RAW files and that's about the best you can do without going whole hog like corporations and full businesses do. Hence the "poor-man's copyright" comment. Its kinda like the old idea of coming up with a concept, writing it all down and snail-mailing it to yourself in a sealed envelope that you'd only ever open in front of a judge with the US Post Mark date on the front. /shrug

 

[Joynt Inspirations]

I've learned to hate so many watermarks when I find they are too obvious, they draw my eye instead of the photograph itself. I use a shortened version of my company name, just the initials. To my eye they're out of the way, and blend into each photo yet are still visible enough that someone can't just rip off the image.


This is an older shot, but it's got the watermark.

Right up to the end by Joynt Inspirations, on Flickr

 

[Jay Khaos]

The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception. Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much. Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you. The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.

I agree with your general statement. I have a good friend who is an IP/Patent attorney and he said its a friggen nightmare and that my best bet, is to put MY name with the year on my images. Then of course have a copy of the RAW files and that's about the best you can do without going whole hog like corporations and full businesses do. Hence the "poor-man's copyright" comment. Its kinda like the old idea of coming up with a concept, writing it all down and snail-mailing it to yourself in a sealed envelope that you'd only ever open in front of a judge with the US Post Mark date on the front. /shrug

I don't have experience with challenging a stolen photo online, but I do have experience with other digital content. I make and sell 3D content in an online game. People buy it directly from my account. Hackers can copy (pirate) the content and resell it or give it away under their own name. I can fill out DMCA paperwork along with screenshots of the items in the 3D software, and the game company will remove the pirated items from circulation and delete the accounts that were responsible. BUT, they cant really stop people from exporting the files as XML and posting them to third party forums where others can download and import them back into the game... that would be up to the forum domain owner

Basically it's up to whoever is in charge to enforce it... for example, flickr would take someone's photo down if you posted it first and report them. A friend of mine had her portfolio listings on Behance.net removed without notice because the company they were designed for found them and decided to file a DMCA complaint since the designs she posted weren't the final versions signed off on... even though she did make them... and in that situation it was Behance who honored the complaint and removed it, not any kind of law enforcer...

 

[Halfrack]

Seriously? This is Sal Cincotta?

No, he is not. Just stated that he got "inspired" by his logo or whatever.

Not inspired, that is the line between readable and not readable. The script works based on the letters in his name, but for some names, script fonts can become illegible.

 

[michi]

Watermarks have always bothered me. You spend all that time composing, and then you add something that doesn't belong there. I totally understand that for your business you would want that of course, or if you are looking to be recognized. To each their own, not a naysayer, just my opinion.

I have always thought about, but never suceeded, in making a sort of invisible watermark. Something like my initials added somewhere in the shot, but only visible if you zoomed in and knew where it was. I that case, someone who stole the picture wouldn't know it's there, and thus wouldn't try to just "fix" it with photo editing software. I that case, you could just zoom in and say, "how come your shot has my initials in the corner here?".

I have done this manually, by just typing my initials into the shot in just barely the same color as where I put it, but I don't know how you could automatically apply it to every picture.

 

[spinworkxroy]

For me, a logo isn't so much to "protect" the image for getting copied. I don't think my images are good enough that people want to copy them anyways.
I put a logo more to spread the word about who i am and what I do and IF by some chance someone chances upon it, at least the name is there and maybe they can search either on facebook or google for me.
And since I do mainly portraits, it's good to get "noticed"

Here's a sample of my logo and well, it's a Panda..not my usual people photos.

 

[cayenne]

Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?

Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?

You think it is better to have Joe Shmoe Photography, or better to maybe have XYZ Photography, and maybe on your images have something like "XYZ Photography by Joe Shmoe"....

Just curious. I'm a bit of a privacy concious person, I don't do facebook, twitter..etc.

However, I would consider possibly having a FB account, but I'd rather ONLY put company info there and leave my name out of it....so, wondering if ya'll see that as a negative affect on a business...or does it make any difference whatsoever?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

 

[Joynt Inspirations]

Part of my business name is my last name, as it's fairly unique, but that was also to ensure that it would be noticeable, and I would know for a fact that nobody else would already have used it. I'm not a fan of having a lot of text or words in a watermark, instead a simplified version of my main logo or the font used for the business name. As previously stated I dislike a watermark that is too busy and derails my main purpose of enjoying the photo.

Just my 2¢

 

[Jay Khaos]

Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?

Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?

You think it is better to have Joe Shmoe Photography, or better to maybe have XYZ Photography, and maybe on your images have something like "XYZ Photography by Joe Shmoe"....

Just curious. I'm a bit of a privacy concious person, I don't do facebook, twitter..etc.

However, I would consider possibly having a FB account, but I'd rather ONLY put company info there and leave my name out of it....so, wondering if ya'll see that as a negative affect on a business...or does it make any difference whatsoever?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

I think a name is good for a photography brand. Depends on the name I suppose. You might solve your dilemma by using an alias, as opposed to your real name or the usual "[insert fancy adjective] Photography". You have the freedom to choose exactly the name you want... plan a seo-friendly URL, plan something that won't leave you being forced to use horizontal AND vertical versions AND alternative/simplified versions...

 

[Hillsilly]

I've got first name, middle initial and surname as my business name. But my choice of business name was solely to assist clients from my previous job find me. (I was under a restraint of trade agreement that prevented me from contacting them directly, but which didn't stop them from approaching me). I've often thought of changing my business name, but in my industry, the choice of a business isn't really crucial to my success, and because of regulatory and licencing reasons, I've decided it is easier to stick with the same name.

However, if I was starting from a zero base, I'd choose a catchy name instead. When operating under your own name, people have the perception that you are a small suburban outfit. That might also imply that you might not have the range of people with the right skills or expertise for all jobs. It also means that everyone that calls up wants to deal you with you - They feel like second-class clients if you don't have the time to look after them personally. Using an alternative name makes your branding, marketing and advertising easier. It possibly also makes it easier to sell your business for more money.

Short answer: only operate under your own name if you want to portray yourself as offering a very personalised exprience or if your market is such that nobody cares what you are called. It is ideal for those who want to keep things small with minimal other staff. But for everyone else, just choose a different name.

 

[alfredo]

Florian, I think your logo approach is what I'd like to do as well (except I still don't have a proper camera nor a website! But let's ignore this detail for a moment...!)

I have a more technical question about adding your logo

I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer

Is it the case you have two versions of the logo, one black, one white, and you manually pick one of them according to the pic, or did you find a more automatic way of doing that? I also noticed the logo position varies, so I assume it's something you carefully choose for each pic. Am I right?

(I can image a rule like: if the overall luminance of the part of the image where the logo will be is dark, use white logo, otherwise use black logo. But I don't think lightroom or similar support this)

 

[nightbreath]

We've come up with the logo by ourselves as well. The key attributes are:
- self-identification: viewer should be able to identify who the photographer is;
- unobtrusiveness: viewer should see the image first, and the logo - second.

Here's an example:

 

[bycostello]

don't get too bogged down on it, as most people won't care....

 

[cayenne]

I've been learning my way around photoshop.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

 

[Zv]

I've been learning my way around photoshop.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

If you create a logo in photoshop and then save it as a PNG you can then use it in Lightroom. In LR go to edit > edit watermarks > and then click on the "choose" button in the Image options tab in the top right hand corner (you can also click on the "Graphic" option too which does the same thing). Find the PNG file and boom you're done. Now you can select multiple images and export with your watermark.

 

[Jay Khaos]

I've been learning my way around photoshop.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

If you create a logo in photoshop and then save it as a PNG you can then use it in Lightroom. In LR go to edit > edit watermarks > and then click on the "choose" button in the Image options tab in the top right hand corner (you can also click on the "Graphic" option too which does the same thing). Find the PNG file and boom you're done. Now you can select multiple images and export with your watermark.

Or better yet, create it in illustrator and save as .eps (if you have Illustrator).

don't get too bogged down on it, as most people won't care....

It matters hugely if you're doing it right... I'm not saying its a deciding factor, but an effective name/logo is one of the single most important variables you can invest properly in