|
Forums >
General Industry >
TFCD: Tagging The Pics With your Logo/Name
Jim March wrote: Well, yes, that's true, but - Someone could take a picture of a published image from a magazine or someone's hard book, with a digital & macro, and then claim it was their own. There's no absolute protection, but.... Another thread another topic... Jun 08 06 06:05 pm Link They can add to an image also, heres an example: It looks better with the stylish logo in my oppinion. so its not always horrible  Jun 08 06 06:06 pm Link I think it's stupid when it's so big it takes up most of the picture. Or when it's put right in the middle of the picture. What happens when you take these pictures to an agency and they see this huge copyright on the picture? It totally messes it up! Jun 09 06 12:03 am Link Whether TFCD or paid, I give models and clients two versions, one for print and one for web use. The web versions have my "(c)tallent.us" watermark, the print versions only have EXIF/IPTC tags. I explain to models that it is in their best interest to use the watermarked versions since the logo is non-obtrusive and it discourages someone stealing their photo and claiming it as their own or using it on some other web site. If they have OMP/MM numbers, I put them under my own logo. Example:  Jun 09 06 12:26 am Link My trade name, at least, goes on any photo I produce. Period. However, with the copies that go to the models I always put it in a corner, it is always every small and I adjust the colors so it doesnt stick out like a sore thumb. Jun 09 06 08:01 am Link I use Digimarc to leave invisible watermarks for models to use on portfolio sites like MM or on personal sites where they can link back to me. That protects us both if someone swipes her pics. If she's going to post somewhere like MySpace where theft is egregious, I use visibles AND Digimarc. My TFP/TFCD agreement says she can use her pics anywhere for self publicity, but if I find them used commercially there's a problem. That's where Digimarc comes in handy since its web spider reports let me know anywhere my images are posted. Jun 09 06 09:01 am Link I don't do TFCD, because I think it is wholly unfair to the models, but that's another subject. I will comment on an aspect of this, however: if you are giving the image to the model as compensation, and if you decide to include a watermark or a copyright notice, that's fine & between the two of you. But, how come we rarely see the name of the model included in the watermark? (And by "rarely", I mean "never", as in "I've never seen a model's name included in the watermark placed on the image by the photographer.") If the TFCD images are intended to help the model find future work, wouldn't identifying the model be useful? (A similar observation can be made concerning the lack of acknowledgement regarding the stylist, too.) Jun 09 06 12:28 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I tried including everyone that was on the picture once, but there were a boatload of names. The photographer, MUA, model, AND stylist. It was way too cluttered, so I decided at that point I would only use my own logo. In retrospect, I guess you could have them all in small print along the border. Jun 09 06 01:03 pm Link CO Model Amber wrote: When I first started posting my work on the web, I was so paranoid about people stealing my images that I put my logo right across the middle of the picture... in RED. LOL Jun 09 06 01:08 pm Link VRG Photography wrote: I was thinking about a photographer placing his/her photos of a model on his/her profile, and a visitor to that profile might be interested in learning who the model was. There's no guarantee that the model belongs to the same on-line portfolio site as the photographer, so attribution might not be possible. Jun 09 06 02:44 pm Link I'll typically let things go with out water marks. Kind of a kind gesture to the models. They are trying to expand their ports, and I want to assist them, and it's gonna look nicer with out my name all over the pictures. Jun 09 06 03:37 pm Link when i get a cd, i get all the shots, websized with a watermark, uneditted, and can choose 5 fullsize without the watermark. Jun 09 06 03:40 pm Link that sounds kinda nice Jun 09 06 03:49 pm Link rachelrose wrote: I dont like to watermark prints that are supplied to a model or mua....I do watermark everything that goes on the web...sorry...but everything that goes on the web. I agree you shouldnt have to have someones elses name on prints in your book...If people ask when they look through mine ,I tell them who the model ,or mua is....I keep my fingers crossed and trust that others do the same.... Jun 09 06 05:18 pm Link I honestly would not TFCD with a photographer who put his/her logos on the photos. In my opinion it looks amateur, and I like to mix my tfcd work with tears. Jun 09 06 06:45 pm Link I notice that some models want the "signature" trademark of their photographer on the print. Kind of a 'proof of purchase' into that network. Jun 10 06 09:31 am Link When I do TFCD shoots, I always put a low-opacity watermark on the image, in an unobtrusive area that could probably be cropped out but would damage the composition of the shot. If the model wants a photo for her portfolio, I offer to have it printed for her based on her size requirement, so no watermark goes on that since I've been told it's going in her book. If she scans it and uses it for other purposes, then I know not to work with that person again unless there's cha-ching to be made. Jun 10 06 12:42 pm Link FabioTovar wrote: LOL, just don't slap the logo across models face LOL Jun 10 06 12:47 pm Link For web images, I always do....part of the reason for doing TFP is cross promotion, and you never know where the images will end up or how many people will see them....also you can't always rely on the model to link you. if I'm being paid, I'll respect the wishes of the client not to use them....for prints I do not put my logo on in most cases....I try to keep a non intrusive logo just the same. Jun 10 06 12:49 pm Link I dont mind when photographers do! Jun 10 06 12:56 pm Link Claire Elizabeth wrote: This is the best thing that I've heard in a long time....We get to shoot when? Jun 10 06 01:10 pm Link I have a 2 step process when presenting images to a model. 1st step is the "Request for Edit" in which the model will have nearly ALL (useable) images from the shoot with a "FOR PREVIEW ONLY" watermark across the center. I've had cases where models couldn't or wouldn't wait for the finished image and used the original image. Bad Idea!.. 2nd step is to take the "selections" (via web form), edit those and then place a logo on the bottom right hand corner. It's small, non-obtrusive and the opacity has been adjusted where it doesn't JUMP OUT at you. If the model wishes to have any of these as printed images, I will remove the logo and prep for the size print he/she wants and provide the print. It's really very easy construct a photoshop "Action" to place a logo on an image.. and "Batch" mode to do an entire directory of images. So many reasons to do or not do logos etc... Jun 10 06 01:18 pm Link FML-Photography wrote: Same here ! All my photos have my copyright © on them unless discussed in advance of the shoot ,( ie a quick shoot , no retouching).Then I wouldn't want my name on them.(rare occasions). Jun 10 06 01:22 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I see your point. Jun 10 06 07:08 pm Link If many of the photographers on here developed their own STYLE they wouldn't need the watermarks or the logos. Jun 10 06 07:15 pm Link AnnieStyle wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to just ASK the photographer to not put their logo on the prints, rather than not work with him/her? As I see it, people are flexible, depending on the project. We aren't all that hardnosed. Jun 10 06 07:21 pm Link photofashion wrote: It all depends. Jun 10 06 07:28 pm Link Heeeeheeee....I can't even think what someone would say if I took my book out with images with copyrights all over them, I think they would have a long hard laugh... Jun 10 06 07:30 pm Link I will normally provide the images on CD in two forms, one for web use, signed so as not to detract from the image, and one for print that only contains the embedded copyright data. When ever possible I maintain my master images with my signature/copyright as a separate layer so that I can toggle it on/off in the production of other images or prints. Jun 10 06 07:37 pm Link Diable wrote: That's a great idea ! Jun 10 06 07:48 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: If the model is foolish enough to use the pictures to promote herself, and does not include a way to identify that the picture is of her, then that's simply stupid. Jun 10 06 09:16 pm Link Sky Above wrote: Agreed. Like so many other conversations on the forum, this is a 'net thing that doesn't work the same way in the non-Internet industry. Jun 10 06 09:19 pm Link |
