-
Quick Tour
Connect. Share. Learn.Welcome to ActiveRain, the #1 social community for real estate professionals.- Explore the world's largest storehouse of real estate knowledge
- Access free training on ActiveRain University
- Share the experience of life in the real estate industry
- Grow your business through real estate blogging
- Blogs
-
Resources
Product Reviews Curious as to what others in your profession think about a certain product or tool? AR's community takes the time to leave honest and transparent reviews of their experiences so you can be a bit wiser about your purchase.
- Broken down by categories and subcategories for easy finds
- Get an unfiltered look at what real users are saying
- Leave a review yourself for others to benefit from
- Add new products as you use them and gain points for doing so
|
Posted by 
;)
;)
;)
Find VA real estate agents and Leesburg real estate on ActiveRain.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
© 2013 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
30 Comments on Can Watermarks Distract From The Quality of Your Photos?
if the photos are in the mls, then we cannot have identification with the agent nor company.
It would be nice to see the larger photo in a smaller version, or as it might be used. I don't think it would be that large, and maybe if smaller it would look better?? It does distract, but a simple (c) with your name will give the copyright notice plain and clear, even if they crop it out, the notice was given on your original.
One subtle watermark in a corner is enough ... it can work well for your website, but not when it's so distracting.
#1- Hi Frank, That is what I'm leaning towrds, but something that doesn't stick out and draw too much attention. Thanks.
#2- Hi Larry, Another vote for bottom right corner. Thanks.
#3- Hi Kwee, I agree. Most of the photos of houses I tak myself, i'm not that worried about watermarks, but occasionally I think it might be a good idea on some extra nice photos! Thanks.
#4- Hi Pamela, Lower L or lower R seems to be the preferred location. Thanks.
#5- Hi Richard, I have noticed on that using the same location isn't always best depending on the photos. I just now checking into this, but not really overly concerned. But when I buy a new camera and devote more time to taking quality professional photos, I might want to watermark more of them. Thanks.
#6- Hi Wallace, That's a good point, especially with rental listings being hijacked and posted on craigslist all the time. Thanks!
#7- Hi Morris, I agree that some do look tacky. I think I'm leaning towards something ( a single signature) off to a corner that doesn't glow in the dark. Thanks.
#8- Hi Judith, I think is protected by copyright whether we watermark it or not. Mostly my photos are for marketing, but I was also considering the branding factor, for example if I posted it on Pinterest, then it got repinned several times, having my web site waternarked on the photo might be good marketing and help others locate the listing? I know, if someone really wants to steal a photo and use it they will. Thanks!
#9- Hi Charita, That is what I'm thinking now as well. Maybe something vague and opaque in lower R or L corner that doesn't attract attention. I don't worry about it that much. I am jsut now considering watermarketing, but I might decide against it. Thanks.
#10- Hi Rich, I know what you mean. It does take a little time, especially when your doing 20-30 photos for a listing.
#11- Hi Kathy, Thanks for mentioning that. I'll have to check the regulations for MRIS. I see them in MRIS frquently, so I assumed they were ok with it. MRIS also puts their copyright on the photos.
#12- Hi Carla, I did the same thing with both photos, so I don't know why one is larger than the other? I am thinking small and inconspicuous is better and less distracting. Thanks.
#13- Hi Maureen, I think I agree with you. Yes, subtle, that is the word I was trying to think of. Thanks!
Richard Weisser does an excellent job of using watermarks. I barely even see it anymore.
Jeff, just as a clarification .. you own the copyright the moment you create an original work, ENFORCING your ownership rights via copyright law depends on several things, one of which is you properly noting it is copyrighted material which consists of the word copyright or (c) and the DATE and the NAME OF THE OWNER. Without affixing the necessary information properly its unlikely you would be able to defend it in court. For a photo with no notice for example, I could say it had no copyright notice on it so it is reasonable to think it was "stock" photography. For the type of notice you are using, it could be postulated that since it is not showing the copyright format the owner does not intend to enforce their copyright, and a reasonable person may think it is OK to use it... it can be misleading and tricky.. so for any of you --- if you consider your photos an asset and you want to protect them, pls seek info on the required copyright notifications.
On the matter of using the watermark as a "brand" ... its a judgement call. I can foresee a goodly amount of the population taking the tact of ".. who said you could use photos of MY property to troll for future business for yourself?... are you selling my house or advertising yourself? What's the deal"? I can see how that could be a double-edged sword.
#15- Hi Tammie, I looked at Richards. They look fine and he does place them in different areas dependong on the photo. Thanks.
#16- Hi judith, That's correct.I guess if I was a professional photographer and had photos I was sure I didn't wnat anyone using without my permission, then yes, I would do the official copyright registration process like you mentioned. But for just everyday MLS photos, it's partially to deter them from just being copied and placed on craigslist which seems o be popular these days. Branding, I think would just be for the term of the listing, then I would delete them. But the problem with that these days is, syndication. I can't keep up with all the places the photos my end up on the internet. Will have to think about that some more. Thanks!
I agree that a lower right or left corner is the best place. I also think that this can be easily cropped by someone who is determined to steal, but at least it makes them go the extra step.
I agree that watermarks can be distracting and in some photos we hate to use them. As just referenced in a {members only} post that I wrote tonight, some people mistakenly think that if you don't watermark an image then it is fair game to use as "stock photo"...which is ironic because even "stock photos" can't be used without permission by copyright law.
Jeff, it depends on where you put them and how subtle you want to be. Our son puts them in places where it's like "Where's Waldo?" when you look for it. Yours is tasteful - even when it's all over the photo :) lol
Sharon
Jeff - I think the watermark in the lower one is very distracting though it is possible for people to crop the photos otherwise.
#18- Hi Sandy, Yeah. Lowoer R or L corner seems to be the consensus. I'm not going to worry too much about someone cropping out a watermark. Even if they steal it, I doubt they will beneift from photos of houses. The only other reason to watermark is to dete lazy agents from just copying the photos instead of taking their own, but if an agent called me and asked if they could use some of my photos, I would probably say yes.
#19- Hi Melissa, Yes, people have protection with or without a watermark. I'll probably decdie to be selective and only watermark certain photos. I'm still wondering if watermarking my web site can help with branding and promoting a listing, without distracting from the quality of the photo?
#20- Hi Frank and Sharon, I'm still trying to decide on degree of subtleness. I think i want peopel to be able to notice them, but I don't want peopel to look at a photo and say: ' wow, that's a great photo, too bad they put that annoying watermark on it". But I can see with some photos, maybe a hidden or camoflouged watermark would be best.
#21- Hi Christine, Yeah, tiled watermarks like that might be overkill. I think I'm not going to worry abaout someone cropping out a watermark. I bet many peopel don;t even know how to crop a photo. Thanks.
This subject is controversial and subjective too...do we do it and if so...a lot or a little?
Hi Richie, Yes, seems like there are pros and cons to watermarketing. Maybe selective watermarks on high quality photos is the answer. I don't see much use in waterrmarking a photo of a kitchen for example.
Jeff, John's is small, like yours, and there are so many places where you could put them in a photo to still see but be subtle.
Sharon
Hi Sharon and Frank, I agree. I think it might be best to just alternate locations on photos and place them wherever they will cause the least distraction from the photo. Thanks!
#27- Hi Steve, I'm not sure it's allowed here either, but I see agents doing it. I'll have to check and verify what the policy is at MRIS.
Hi Jeff, personally I would prefer not to see any graffiti on a photo, but if you have to have one then a lower corner is best. If I see a photo with tiled graffiti like the third photo, I think that they should have just kept the photo buried in their closet if they were that afraid that someone might use it or enjoy it so much that they ruined it rather than let anyone look at it.
#29- Hi Bob, I think that is what I am preferring now as well. If watermarks are used, they should blend in and not be noticable.