by Kyle on February 09, 2010
Wall You Others Out, Or Wall You Yourself In?
Here is a question nagging me for too long now: Why do certain watch websites watermark the images that they receive from various watch brands? Mostly I am thinking of ThePurists (aka WatchProsite) and to a lesser extent Horomundi.com (sites I enjoy on a daily basis, btw). For years I see this, these nagging watermarks on images that are not even their own. I’m not trying to be snide about this – I honestly just don’t get it, particularly in this day and age. Heck, even TimeZone, the most guarded, controlled and walled-off watch community on the Internet doesn’t even watermark their images – and if anyone would be expected to do such a thing it would be them.
Sure, I can understand and respect these people for wanting to preserve some level of propriety for images that they or their teams create – but images that a watch brand provides to all media (bloggers, print media, etc. etc.)? C’mon who you kidding? If these aforementioned watermark-happy sites go beyond their own walls (which maybe they do and thus they will weigh in accordingly here), I wonder why they don’t wonder why these MANY other legitimate websites are sharing with their readers the same information and images – except without an exclusive “seal of approval”.
To me, this behavior shows a fundamental lack of understanding of where the true value lies in online media today (hint: it’s not watermarked images). Besides, there is this little unwritten code called a “hat tip”, a “nod”, or a “linkback” – and in my experience most people are more than happy to hand them out now and again – no watermarks needed. What goes around, comes around, you know?
Anyway, with that off my chest – I’d really love to hear what others think on this topic.
No related posts.
18 Responses to “Riddle Me This…Why Do You Watermark Your Images?”
Leave a Reply
EDITOR'S PICKS
- Dealing with Dictators - Wear Your Finest Panerai?
- Narco Bling: The Watches of Mexican Drug Kingpins
- OMEGA Seamaster Planet Ocean "Liquidmetal" - A Ceramic-bezel Planet Ocean is here
- TAG Heuer Shoots Itself In the Foot on TAG Heuer Caliber 1887 Launch
- Hublot On A Lightning Bolt
- Beyond the Big Bang - What's Next for Hublot?
- Kobe and Shaq Go 1-On-1 - Who will win?
- SIHH 2010 Panerai Composite Marina Militare PAM 339
- Which Watch is YouTube Founder Chad Hurley Wearing?
- Bernie on the (Auction) Block: Madoff's Monoblocco Rolex, Other Watches Up for Grabs
RECENT POSTS CATEGORIES BROWSE BY BRAND
The watermarks you refer to are not claiming any ownership or copyright, they are simply advertising for the websites or person that published the image. While reputable websites/Blogs/forums do, as you point out, give recognition to their the source of the material, that is far from being a universal practice.
“. . . but images that a watch brand provides to all media (bloggers, print media, etc. etc.)? C’mon who you kidding? ” If that was the case with the images you refer to then what’s the problem? Surely you would have your own untarnished images.
During fairs like the SIHH and Baselworld, it is common for brands to release publicity material/images to the journalists/magazines/websites who attend – a reward for making the effort and listening to the whole PR blurb – before making them available to all and sundry via their website press download section or whatever.
If I – on behalf of (and perhaps paid by) Horomundi – go to the time and effort of meeting a brand and, as a result/reward, get an early release of a few photos, I know that within minutes of them being posted on Horomundi that they will be turning up on websites all over the world. I not only accept that, I think that the sharing of information is great for everybody.
If I watermark the images ‘Horomundi’ and they end up being posted on say Perpetuelle.com then the brand gets maximum exposure; Perpetual.com get access to the latest images with little effort; Horomundi gets recognition for obtaining the images in the first place.
While a few days later the internet mightl be full of clean images, as we know everyone wants to see the photos as soon as possible and it is those first published images that spread around the web so quickly and so widely. It is those first published images that are likely to be watermarked.
That’s the reason why I do it, other people/websites may have different motivations.
Good question though and I did wonder about this practice as well – until I started doing it myself.
Ian,
Thanks for your reply. First let me say that I have no problem obtaining my own content and the notion that sites that watermark are somehow preventing or controlling my access to information is precisely part of the misunderstanding.
In fact therein lies the real issue – the thing is, you / Horomundi are NOT the “gatekeepers” of these images. The brands are. You don’t own them, the brands do. We who receive them really aren’t THAT special or privileged – it is our opportunities to go to SIHH, Baselworld, and behind the scenes access that is special. Thus watermarking is just plain unnecessary, to put it kindly. And Horomundi or other “watermark happy sites” are most often not the first to post/share images anyway, so what are you/they really accomplishing? Basically, I am saying that there is absolutely no advantage in watermarking your images – in fact the ironic result is actually that your “advertisements” will be used LESS (if at all) by other sites who might otherwise give you the linkback/credit for posting them.
Why come to your site for tarnished images if I as a consumer can enjoy untarnished images elswehere? And as for those who don’t give you the credit…well, look, like I say they are not your images in the first place. This is not something that can be controlled in the online world. Sustainable competitive advantages must be built on pillars other than watermarked images.
Long way of respectfully saying that I think that watermarking is actually to the detriment of those who practice it.
Kyle,
I have pondered this issue myself. And while I totally respect Ian and his work, as well as his rationale, I have to personally agree with you that this practice is more or less total douchebaggery. While there is effort involved in doing to events, people should take actual images while they are there (which would be personally copyright protect – that will protect usage at least in theory). These days the brands e-mail these images freely to people easily and without having to jump through hurdles. At SIHH I didn’t sit through any presentations, took lots of my own images, and would never try to “protect”images that the brands wish to distribute. As a watch blogger it is part of my job to help that distribution.
Going back to sites that watermark, they should end this silly “whose first” pissing contest and focus on coverage and the written words that go around the images.
Hey Ariel,
Thanks for weighing in, it seems that we are pretty much aligned in our thinking on this subject. I think watermarking is to the detriment of those who do it. At the end of the day it’s really up to the readers, but I just don’t see any attraction to a watermarked image that is not mine in the first place.
Kyle
For what it’s worth, I always try to make a point of crediting the source of an image I use, and in the ht, link back to the author’s site. If I was making high-quality images and they were being swiped for other purposes w/out proper credit, it would certainly bother me, especially if they ended up on eBay.
I agree with Ariel, make your own content. If someone publishes press images off my site, I don’t care. If someone takes my original images off my site and then publishes them, without a link back, then I have a problem. Still I will not watermark, however, it is a site owner’s right to do so if they do not mind the look.
Whatever the reason, watermarks which restrict access between the viewer and the content being viewed is a bad idea.
When websites were being build by the megabytes they transfered, watermarking made sense. But in the more recent ages of the internet, watermarking pictures which are not the intellectual property of the website owner is mostly pointless.
Hi Kyle, Ian and Ariel.
I have enjoyed reading content from all three of you regularly, and for some time – so hello to all!
It’s interesting that someone’s actually decided to put ‘pen to paper’ about this one. I see it daily and yet have never paid it more than an amused glance, particularly when the watermark proclaims that the image in question is actually ‘for’ someone/site thus endowing that individual/site with some kind of ‘ownership’ to that image – or at least giving the impression of ownership and exclusivity and consequently impart the air of authority, and no-one can really accept that credit except for the watchbrand.
I must admit that is is not a major annoyance to me, but I can see how it can serve to deceive, when I’m sure that many readers will have their own favourite watch information venue and might be led to think that the site which claims that the watermarked images featured are indeed created ‘for’ that site.(eg ‘johnnywatchmaker for abc123blog.com’). I wonder does such a proclamation cause casual/new visitors to Perpetulle, ABlogToRead etc to believe that those sites which don’t watermark are a somehow lesser authority than ThePuristS and Horomundi?
Yeah, I know they’ve been around for a long time providing quality articles and forums etc, and might in some way feel that they hold seniority in the sector, but when unmarked images are widely available across the web (even if they haven’t appeared on the brand press area yet – which is often!) then it negates the need to watermark – unless it is the intention is to either discredit and ward off the new ‘pretenders’ or just something which hasn’t been broken so didn’t need fixing.
I’m afraid I don’t buy the ‘exposure’ angle either – as I haven’t noticed Ian’s watermarked images appearing on Perpetuelle or ABlogToRead (I might be wrong). A watermark can surely be ’shopped out anyway? I know Ian, you take many of your own images at shows or in the manufactory on visits, those aren’t the images I mean here, to clarify.
So, if I was looking for an image that I couldn’t find though regular press sources, I wouldn’t be visiting the watermarkers for it, I would sooner tip my hat or link back to the origin if I copied it from another source.
Gent’s,
I am a bit late for this discussion, but I would still like to contribute my thoughts.
Applying watermarks to brand images is silly in my opinion. This is quite different from watermarking personal photos taken by photographers, such as Ian, because people do not always give credit where credit is due. It is rather easy to obtain brand images directly from the brands. And to say “brand for website” is misleading as far as I am concerned because it implies to me that the brand has provided these photos exclusively to a particular website.
The way I see it is, whoever published the releases first benefits with more traffic and attention. But we should all remember it is the brand who should be in the spot light.
Interesting and in a way happy to see the different opinions and views expressed here.
I habitually watermark all my own photographs and also those provided by brands (e.g. “jaw@horomundi” or “brand for jaw@horomundi”). While I do claim copyright ownership of the photos I shot myself, there is absolute no intention to mislead nor to claim that we somehow are more privileged than others. (I certainly don’t think I have any privilege over anyone herre, in fact, the reverse maybe true)
When watermarking, I also make sure I watermarrk at the corner so that it doesnt tarnish the main images.
I don’t know why others watermark imagees, but I have been doing it for one and a half decade on the web simply because I try to protect myself from any potential problem as advised by an old copyright lawyer friend of mine.
I was told about 15 years ago that when a brand hands a press kit to the media, even if it is a mass release, there is an implicit legal understanding that the copyright owner has the right to distribute the contents to anyone it wishes but not the recipient. In fact, at least one brand still has the clause explicitly stated in its media release today (very rare). By watermarking, it is hoped that it will lessen our legal responsibilities when our postings on the web are copied elsewhere without our permission (we don’t have the legal authority to give permission anyway).
I don’t know if this still applies but I am certainly not going to take any risk even if the practice seems silly today. In any case, I continue with the practice today because it doesn’t hurt anyone. As stated by the author, those images are mass emailed out for anyone interested and if I put my little watermark in the corner, it doesn’t matter as anyone can obtain the images they wanted from the brands anyway, right?
Jaw
Jaw – thanks for your reply. Interesting your perspective, but I think your view and your practice is out-dated. Things have changed quite a bit in 15 years (have you been posting watches on the Internet that long? impressive!), most notably the breadth of websites covering the watch industry.
You are of course free to keep watermarking, but I and many many others think it is an unnecessary practice. And as I told Ian, this has nothing to do with the fact that I or others are somehow raising this issue because we need to use your images because we don’t have access to our own – that is precisely the kind of thinking that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the new, Internet-driven media landscape in which we all operate in. As much as some sites would like to “control” or otherwise view themselves as the gatekeeper of watch information and images, this silly notion is long and permanently gone.
thanks again for weighing in with some backround and your thoughts
Jaw – I did want to also acknowledge that I think your manner of watermarking is as you say not intrusive or tarnishing of the overall image – which is a good thing and I suppose I have less of an issue with this. Although I don’t think you need to watermark at all, my main issue is with those who take these press images and place the watermark on the actual image itself. This I find to be totally unacceptable.
Thanks Kyle, your views understood..
Jaw
Hi gentlemen. Interesting discussion, but it raises another point, which is civility. With all due respect for the substantive point initially raised, I think describing someone else’s practice as “douchebaggery” reflects the substance of the insult far more on the deployer of the pejorative than on its intended target, to say nothing of giving the lie to any pretensions of collegiality. Would it kill us all to mind our manners a bit?
I do find it interesting that the two people who appear to have the strongest opinions on this issue are Kylie and Ariel, who happen to have their own excellent Blogs. Why is it that if these images are so easy to obtain directly from the brands, that this would worry either of you in the slightest? If the aim is to altruistically help the larger forums and websites who perpetuate this practice to improve their business practice why not a private email? After all, if Blogs such as yours do not need to use such images, it isn’t hurting you, the websites are only potentially hurting themselves (and possibly driving more traffic to you).
Over the many years I have In been posting photos, opinions and articles on forums, I have had complaints about my views, my spelling, the quality of my photos and my taste in watches. But nobody, including any brand, has ever said, “Ian I wish you would not put, ‘Brand XX for Horomundi or whatever, under your images. Never ever one single person. And like Jaw, I have never tried to make the watermark obtrusive or detrimental to enjoying the photo, and I certainly have never intended claiming any rights or ownership over images which are not mine.
Kyle. In your reply to Jaw you said, ” . . . , but I think your view and your practice is out-dated. Things have changed quite a bit in 15 years . . .”
While I respect your right to your own opinion, copyright law has not changed in teh last 15 years. I still get press releases with photos from brands with small print legalese making it quite clear on pain of imprisonment,if not death (OK I made that up) that I had absolutely no right to reproduce, publish or distribute the contents of the email in anyway without express permission of the owner. And that is as 100% correct now as it was 15 years ago. Practices may have changed for many, but the law hasn’t.
Ariel. If you want to be invited back to the SIHH, may I suggest that you do not brag publicly about not attending any brand presentations. “At SIHH I didn’t sit through any presentations, took lots of my own images, and would never try to “protect”images that the brands wish to distribute.” And I respect your non-legal “right” to do whatever you wish with the images you receive from the brands. But why shouldn’t I have the same “right” to do what I like with the images I receive as well?
The great thing about the internet is that if you do not like something you are only a click away from not having to suffer it.
Something to discuss over a beer or two at Basel?
First let me say that I am always up for a beer or two
The main reason I wrote an article about it is because I believe that an open discussion would be most insightful and I think it has. In some ways, I am speaking as a reader/member of each of the sites I mentioned – it bothers me every bit as much a consumer of the content as a producer. This practice has been going on for upwards of a decade and many people have the same curious question that I did/do so why not have a forthright discussion. I did reply to Jaw above that my more specific gripe is those who watermark right over the top of the image (ironically it is “The Purists” who do mostly do this) – it looks very tacky, un-Pure, tarnished, whatever you want to call it. Why is this necessary?
As for copyright law not chaning in 15 years – generally true I suppose but I’m not really arguing it has. Is it copyright law that mandates that all journalists watermark photos they get from the brands? A lot of law-breaking going on if so!
Anyway, I’m glad that all saw fit to put in their say here – of course the ‘Comment’ button remains open and free for further rants/raves/whatever. Otherwise, I’ll look forward to a beer or two somewhere down the road with any, hopefully all, involved in the chat here (won’t be in Basel this year)…first round’s on me!
There is also another issue behind the watermarking of brands’ pictures, which I actually believe is at the root of the phenomenon, and that’s the issue of bandwith.
If a non-watermarked picture gets posted on site A, and it is hosted there, anyone else could simply link to it, display it on their page hosted on site B, and have it served to their users by site A, using its server’s resources and bandwith with no-one being the wiser to it. With a watermarked picture, you would see where it is coming from, and if you wanted to crop it to remove the watermark (I cannot tell you how many times I saw this being done to my own pictures!), you would then have to host it elsewhere. I can tell you that at least on thePurists, where I moderated for years, this was the primary reason for watermarking.
Today, this is less of an issue, as bandwidth and server processing power have decreased dramatically in cost, but the habit seems to have stuck. Personally, I still do it with press kit photos, but I make sure that the watermark is not covering the watch itself…
Hi Alberto,
I say this as a Consumer of such content! It bothers me!
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate the chance to hear your thoughts as well from the Purists side, though you are not a Purist who is a practitioner of what bothers me most – watermarks that go right square on top of the image (none are subtle to a watch enthusiasts eye) – totally unnecessary and seems so unPure if you ask me
As to the “bandwidth” argument – I agree it is completely irrelevant today.
Take Care-