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!

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?

Jaw

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

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

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.