|
Forums >
General Industry >
Logos on Photos?
Why do so many photographers ruin great shots by putting a huge or even small logo somewhere across it? I saw one awesome shot today and the guy had plastered hi logo right across the middle of the shot and it took up at least 30% of the frame. Why? Okay I know why but geeae get over it and stop screwing up the beautiful work you are doing people! Oct 09 06 07:44 am Link Skip Nall Photography wrote: Just look at all the threads on pictures being stolen and used on other sites.... Oct 09 06 07:53 am Link This is a high theft area! Beware. Oct 09 06 07:55 am Link I used to have small, but then went big... you got a problem with that? In the ether of the Net, all's fair â and who cares!?! It's my own personal 'LoJack' security system â F it. Oct 09 06 07:59 am Link logos are lame. have you ever seen "Steven Meisel" stamped across an image? no. what about "Testino"?? nope. i used to put my name on mine but an agency lady told me it was "hokey" and i noticed that none of the photogs i admire do it so i stopped. it's nice to just put the image out there and let it stand on its own. i hope friends would tell me if they see a theft...i even emailed google for a stranger from another thread on this site! worth noting is that many of the stolen images had big tacky stamps on them.  Oct 09 06 08:08 am Link Personally I think a nice looking logo makes a photo look professional if it is placed on a part of the image that doesn't interfere with the subject. Oct 09 06 08:15 am Link When you find your work on another site under a different name or people using your images on paysites to make money and they simply stole your work cause you didnt protect it perhaps you will understand. Using imbedded watermarks to track is wonderful but what happens when it is on a site in a foreign country that doesnt have the same copyright laws as we do? Good luck trying to hunt them down as well. Yes you can pay sites to look for your images ( a cost that is not necessary if you simply protect them with a large logo) Or you can spend your days looking for them yourself (I have better things to do with my time). So while it may not be visably stimulating to you to view images with logos on them, it really isnt that hard to understand why they are there! GW Oct 09 06 08:17 am Link lol get over what>? Get over our photos being stolen? I don't think so. Oct 09 06 08:20 am Link eric krumm wrote: I thnk you are exactly right! I don't thinnk Helmut Newton, Savullo, or a host of other photogs put logos on their photos...check this sight for some of Annie Leibowitz work...NO logos. http://www.art-forum.org/z_Leibowitz/Gallery.htm Oct 09 06 08:21 am Link I hate the look of the logos also.... and have been holding off for years on placing them on my images..... UNTIL..........i was constantly alerted my images where on this site and that site, against my wishes!~.... hell not long ago, a model emailed saying her/my image was featured on a transexual dating service site.????? WTF????? that was taking it a bit too far, so i started plastering font on my images.... i try to keep it color coded and simple to not take up too much of the viewers attn.... right now, i am fighting it out with some "agency" on myspace trying to get my work removed from his page without incurring legal costs doing so....this same "agency" is notorious on many MM threads.....he steals pics from here and then says he took them....whatta world...??? Dan Oct 09 06 08:26 am Link Corey Wellman wrote: Just to check a quick right click and then a left I had the 591.5k photo of yours shot of a guy in torn jeans from below b/w on my desktop...taook a look at the metadata and there was none there...I think embedded metadata is far better than logos... Oct 09 06 08:26 am Link I stamp my images with a small logo, when I put my images on the web...but not for a print portfolio or anything else... I'm not Annie Liebowitz and I'm not David LaChapelle...nobody on this site is...when I see an image by Annie Liebowitz, I know it is her, with or without a byline, caption or credit. The same rules and standards do not apply to everyone... Oct 09 06 08:30 am Link DJ Photography wrote: If you aspire to be great of even good wouldn't you follow the lead of the best? Standards of quality are across the board in this business...rules no but standards yes...seems to me...well at least at this very moment. Oct 09 06 08:34 am Link Who cares what other photographer really do in all honesty... Soon I am going to photograph my logo and ruin it with a model in the middle of a shot... Im just saying. Oct 09 06 08:38 am Link I add a copyright on my images so that people will know who did the photos.. for no other reason than that... If I'm submitting the images to anyone for any professional reason, I use higher resolution images without any logos/copyright information. I put my name there purely for web use and promotion. ~Saryn Oct 09 06 08:42 am Link DJ Photography wrote: Well we could be if we stole their work and put it up on our site!!! BTW has Dave LaChapelle's new season started on Comedy Central yet??? Oct 09 06 08:42 am Link f*ck that. typography is more fun than photography.  edit: to expound upon that notion, i feel that one's signature is an opportunity to further the artistic merit of the photograph itself, though a cheesy typeset splashed across a photograph without any regard toward the mood it sets does, indeed, ruin a picture. Oct 09 06 09:03 am Link From a model stand point, my only peeve about logos is photogs who give models images to be printed that have the logo on it. I don't want the logo in my book. I completely agree that it is needed for images on the web and for a photog's book, but not for a mod's Oct 09 06 09:10 am Link I put my tag on there for 2 reasons... 1 - So that when people see the image they know whos it is.. 2 - To get the name out there if somebody is gonna steal the image and photoshop my name off... then they must like it that much and im flattered... One day when my images are soo signature that you cant mistake it for anything else... then ill stop... Oct 09 06 09:13 am Link David Birdsong wrote: Well said!!!! Oct 09 06 09:22 am Link David Birdsong wrote: I only put my name/logo on my photos when being posted on this site and Myspace, considering all the thieves I've been reading of lately. Oct 09 06 10:03 am Link DAN DOYLE STUDIO wrote: I'm having the same problem over on Myspace. Some idiot stole one of my photos, made a Myspace page using my photo as their default pic. I've written them several times stating I own the image. All I get is an e-mail response telling me to send my "salute", which is a shot of myself holding a written sign with my name and myspace ID number. Problem is, I'm not in the photo that was stolen, it's a model. I've told them that, they send me the same response. And since the model in the photo is not a member of Myspace they won't do a damn thing about it. Oct 09 06 10:11 am Link I watermark my photos for 3 reasons: 1. Let anyone who made the photo. 2. Protect the photo to be used by a third party. 3. Anyone can contact me with ease. Oct 09 06 08:13 pm Link Cat Platz wrote: i agree here , i have seen a few print portfolio,s with diffrent logo,s on each picture. it looks like crap and i really dont care who took the mod,s previous pictures. if i give a model a picture with value i sign the back. Oct 09 06 08:24 pm Link what your not thinking of is all the guys who download your pics and collect them. sure there not profiting from them but they still have them. i dont watermark my portfolios online , but im not going to put anything of value on the net. if i get money for it then post it for the world to see for free , the collecters i sell to would hang me !!!!! Oct 09 06 08:31 pm Link I put a small text watermark on the photos I take and there is a hidden layer watermark as well in the image...  Oct 09 06 09:01 pm Link I think the watermarked logs are the best. They're transparent but not entirely invisible. This allows the viewer to see the artwork but makes it impossible for them to photoshop the watermark out of it w/out ruining the entire photograph. Oct 09 06 09:03 pm Link Mine is for copywrite, branding, and most of all, marketing... Oh and its only for web, never print Oct 10 06 12:14 am Link DJ Photography wrote: Ditto... Oct 10 06 12:19 am Link Skip Nall Photography wrote: I have only two words for that - ego Oct 10 06 12:20 am Link I dont know, Logos kind of scream "new photographer" or "please test with me". I am not a big fan of them. I think if you gotta do it, small font at the very bottom or on the side of the image. Something that doesn't take away from the image itself. I mean testing is good and all, but if somebody wants to know who took a shot in my book, they can ask me. But if I am showing somebody my book, it is because I am trying to land a job, not that I am actng as an employment agency for somebody else. Not that it really matters, I do this full time and I rarely show my book, my work is mostly from references. Oct 10 06 12:23 am Link Skip Nall Photography wrote: What makes you think that because I have a logo on my web images that I also have them on images in my printed port? That's the nice part about printing your own stuff, you get to make different versions. Cat Platz wrote: Absolutely right. Any web optimized image you would receive from me would have a small unobtrusive watermark - as much for promotion as anything else. But any printed work you received from me would be clean. Oct 10 06 12:41 am Link i was just hosting images when i saw your question and though i often agree with you i just thought id see if it took more than 2 minutes to (1 take and 2 write copy on) and it didn't! makes me want to cover mine with copyrights now... [url=http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image.jpg]  [/urlOct 10 06 12:43 am Link Skip Nall Photography wrote: Logos are for advertisement, and can also be used to guard against "theft" primarily internet theft. Oct 10 06 12:59 am Link Craig Thomson wrote: Ya meant to say "Bruce Talbot" huh? Oct 10 06 01:04 am Link eric krumm wrote: That's because you were probably putting your logo on the high-res images you were giving to the agencies to print for their models. That's not the same as putting a name on the images meant to go on the internet. Oct 10 06 01:45 am Link Skip Nall Photography wrote: People putting their names on images for internet use doesn't mean they're doing it on images in their books. Why would you assume that much? If you can't differentiate between MM profiles and actual printed books... Oct 10 06 01:49 am Link Bruce Talbot wrote: ROFLMAO@Bruce Oct 10 06 01:51 am Link LiliOPhoto wrote: lol .... agreed Oct 10 06 01:51 am Link rachelrose wrote: No, the work does. Look at the work. You have to look at the printed portfolio, because your statement now screams "internet make-up artist." :::rolls eyes::: Oct 10 06 02:41 am Link |
