they tried to pass something like this in the US i think but didnt hear much about it. :/
i never watermark my stuff though cause im neither popular or is my stuff high enough quality to try anything with to resell XD but i guess i should start anyway

... This is wrong on so many levels. A lot of people will end up being harassed over this eventually. ._. I am saving all my work now, removing it, and water marking it. Thanks for the heads up.

I believe a noticeable signature works just as well, which is easier to work with and make look decent then a big ass watermark. But yeah, sadly a good deal of artists really hate watermarking for some reason or another.

I've been harassed multiple times for putting watermarks on my artwork...........

I mean, I'll still put a signature on the image, but ...
However, I've had people send me my own artwork that's been "cleaned" of it's watermark, saying "It's easy to remove, might as well not have that ugly thing on there. It doesn't protect you."

>.<

My god, that's scary.

It was terrifying and threatening....and made me feel incredibly powerless...

I still feel powerless about the whole thing.

I took a look at your gallery and saw your mark. It's strategically placed, but I think to avoid anything drastic, they're right. it's far too easily cleaned up. I sign my works on the bottoms or sides of my images, and I know without a doubt how easy it is to simply erase it.

The only watermark I can think of that would be the most efficient is something that covers the majority of an image, but allowing it to be an overlay layer, so that it doesn't COMPLETELY destroy the image. This, however, would only make more people on this website less likely to enjoy your work as much. It's, for lack of a better term, a censor for the artwork, but also a protection to cover the whole center of the subject matter, rather than place it in the corner. I might start signing my signature WITHIN the lines of my figures from now on, but still in a subtle area, so that it's there, and not too overwhelming, but much, much harder to remove.

Btw, I am appalled you were actually harassed to the point of them even mocking you with the removal of your mark. An artist shouldn't feel like they have to hide the fact THEY did something, and should never feel afraid or threatened to where they no longer mark it. That right there is bullshit at its finest mixture.

Perhaps someone should come up with some sort of 'guideline' of how to do a watermark that is both effectively protective, yet won't drive viewers away, or entice people to attempt to remove the mark.

Gosh! Thank you so much for your reply and sympathy! You're so kind!!

.....Yes I wish there was some kind of "right-way" to do this sort of thing...I don't want to alienate the people with perfectly good intentions, but I want to deter anyone else.

I think the best way would be what you suggested-"something that covers the majority of an image, but allowing it to be an overlay layer"

However, the "harassers" have shown me that, even with a watermark over the image, if someone really wants to steal that image, they will :(

aaah but thank you so much for your kindness!

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who found this whole thing very.......wretched.

Please take care!

Sadly this is something artists have to accept. It, in the end, becomes a wild goose chase. Be sure to place your watermarks that make it the hardest to remove, and also post low-rez images. The lower the rez, the less desirable it is to edit. :)

Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but it is actually really easy with some basic photoshop skills to remove watermarks unless your art is incredibly complicated or the watermark is cleverly placed, even so someone good enough in photoshop can remove just about anything in a picture. So if someone really wants to steal your artwork, they will.

Just to show what some people can do compare these

http://i.imgur.com/QEOnA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fPqHQ.jpg

It all depends on how willing people are.

Best watermark I've ever seen was on Jim Hardiman's work. It was invisible when the picture is normal size, but if you shrink it (not zoom) the watermark shows up in glaring black letters. It was quite awesome.


p.s. It might've been the opposite, but I'm not really sure. It was still cool. >_>

...right...that's what I'm saying :(

Gosh, why do people like to scare me like this.

I completely agree with this comment 100%
However, I would like to point out that that particular example you've used is not entirely appropriate, as it was done with a technique that would require 2 pictures almost exactly the same to completely cover up the guy; It was done by the artist, not by some crazy shopper. (Please ask if I didn't clarify myself XD )
The point of this response was just to alleviate some artist's worry a little, because well, that example is frankly quite amazing and freaking scary to somebody who doesn't know how it's been done :D
Yes, it would only require basic photoshop skills to shop that picture if you had both components (2 pics) but to someone who didn't have the components I'd gauge it at a good skill level and highly unlikely >>>for the example in question<<<.

This is terrifying. I have an entire album of unmarked pictures on my FB just to show my family members, but I know that there are easy ways to view profiles now regardless of if it's locked or not.

I'm not very popular and am not well known, so I feel like I have yet to become a target of art-theft, but the thought still haunts me and is in the back of my mind of what I would do... "What if?" and such...

I have a feeling if there ever was a time to just put my foot down and do it, now's the time. My main concern is commissions. Of course I'd want to watermark my work no matter what for this thing, but commissioners would want normal copies. I have faith in the commissioners I do have to not do this, but who's to say someone may want to take an un-watermarked version and post it on instagram anyway or something? I have a strong feeling too, that the majoirty of artists that suffer from art theft, are those that have multiple social networking accounts too though. Tumblr, twitter, etc..it's all become a rather large instagram, and people enjoy editing funny or interesting pictures, artwork or not, and posting them to make them 'funnier' or claiming to identify with it. With the way the internet works today, it's really hard to avoid such things, especially if you do art that is incredibly astounding, humorous and popular to make people smile, or fanart, especially of pokemon and the like.

For your commissioners, you still hold the rights to the image. Simply provide them if a watermarked and non-watermarked image, and let them know the watermarked image is the only one to be posted. Also, be sure to express your concerns to them of why you only want that one uploaded.
I have yet to have an issue with a commissioner on this subject. :)

That is excellent advice, tartii. Thank you! Now I just have to come up with a watermark/logo I can be happy with that isn't too terrible of an eye-sore.

That is complete bullshit, seriously.

That is a load of crap. What a bunch of greedy money grubbing lawmakers.

Gah. And I thought today couldn't get any more alarming for me. Well, I may not draw, really...but I'm going to put a link to this up in my journals. Admittedly I feel the word needs to be spread!

I will admit to being ignorant about the whole situation. Isn't it typically normal for people to take whatever they want, regardless of any laws or watermarks? That's just the experience I have had before.

I mean, does it matter if a picture is watermarked? I've been to conventions where there were several different watermarks (dates, name, etc) on the pictures, yet it would still be sold, most likely without the permission of the artist.

As I said, I am ignorant, so I am just having a hard time understanding how even a picture that is watermarked could help prevent a picture from being "orphaned"

Ah, the difference is that, before, that was illegal. People could get in trouble.
But now it is perfectly legal under this new law.

Ah I see. Yet that brings up the concern of a watermark protecting the art. If it is legal now because of this law, won't art be stolen regardless of a watermark?

Nope!...well, not 'legally' per se'. As far as I know, the only thing they can legally take is 'orphaned' artwork. By my understanding, this means un-marked artwork, or artwork that doesn't seem to have an owner (which we all know is never true.) So, when they can't find the art registered to somebody, or a signature/watermark ect. they can take it and be free of charges.

Oh I see! Thank you so much for clearing this up. I really appreciate it!
I just thought that it was orphaned when it wasn't registered, which costs money.

That is the speculation. As far as I know, if there is some form of proof it belongs to somebody on the art piece it isn't orphaned. That is the extent of my knowledge though. :c

I understand.
Oh and I just looked up the actual definition of orphan works.
"An orphan work is a copyrighted work whose owner is impossible to identify or contact."
So I will assume that if you actually use your real name as a signature for your artwork, it might be easier to get around that law, since your name is recorded in documents for stuff like Social Security, medical bills, regular bills, even credit cards.

Thanks for the warning, I'll spread the word now.

... I wonder why people cant just cut artists a break.... thanks for the heads up Tartii.

Just do what the cool kids do and put it somewhere really inconspicuous; in the data of the image itself. All images are basically lines of code, just slip it in there. Information like when it was saved, and what computer it was created upon is already saved in every image file in existence.

I can't believe something like this passed!

okay... I'm lost...this is legal only in the UK isn't that what this thing is saying?

it would appear so...but with something like the internet and people all over the world posting art...what's to stop someone in the UK stealing your art legally?

Hi, we're British! Screw your human rights. >_>

perfect icon is perfect

GDI DOCTOR.

That's just not right.

Just to paraphrase quickly "In practice, you'll have two stark choices to prevent being ripped off: remove your work from the internet entirely, or opt-out by registering it. And registration will be on a work-by-work basis."

However I suggest a third solution. In the case of artwork, simply put your signature in a high profile place - say along a leg or something like that where it would be impossible to remove without damaging the image.

In terms of artists, digital copies are a means to an end and mostly for promoting the artist (especially on sites like FA). So, so long as you make damn sure everyone knows you are the artist (this applies to all artists) I think it'll not have too great of an impact.

Also - just my own opinion here, but this is beyond 'human rights' As artists you choose to upload your works freely to massive archives which are available to the general public. So please don't be naive to think that your rights will be respected by everyone and their dog. (come on it's the interwebs.. )

This new act, is more about tackling the issue of the impossibility to be able to police such a thing. Billions of images all subject to copyright law? - Well yes fine in theory, but completely impractical. Naw come on. What they are saying here is that YOU as the artist have to be responsible for your own work. I agree.

I'm done with this stupid planet

*flips table*

F&$%# it. No really, just... #$^% it. I'm not going to bust my tail making art just for old white men who are stuck in 1850 and know nothing about the 20th OR 21st centuries to vote to make things stupider for everyone.

Does this mean that even US artists like us will get our stuff stolen if someone in the UK pulls it up on FA and decides to steal it?

...*sigh* I'm sorry, I'm just stressed and forgotten how to at least TRY to love/compassion other humans. -.- But this is still flank.

I really don't know. That is what my concern is...that if somebody takes something an American made in the UK, can we not do anything about it if the image doesn't say who it belongs to?

If its signed.... No, you don't have to worry. In Russia and China, your American copyright doesn't mater, even with 10 watermarks.

And here is what the actual Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill says.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/.....s-royal-assent

The part that covers copyright.

"Modernize the UK’s copyright regime to promote innovation in the design industry, encouraging investment in new products while strengthening copyright protections. Creating a level playing field for collecting societies and the thousands of small businesses and organisations who deal with them by strengthening the existing regulatory regime. For the first time orphan works will be licensed for use; these are copyrighted works for which the owner of the copyright is unknown or can’t be found. There will also be a system for extended collective licensing of copyright works."

O.o; I have no idea what to say to this.

-Fox

It would seem that the commotion caused by this is due mostly to the subject of money, or, seemingly, it's reduction of. I wonder, is it the fear of artists losing some money, or the fear of others making some? Of which of these two dooms is the fouler, to the noble mind of the modern artist?

It is a pity, at least in my eyes, that the arts should be reduced to nothing but a vehicle for profit. That an artist must slander and deface their work with brazen copyright notices is a sad reflection on society. Now, not so suddenly, information has become a physical object that is capable of being stolen, and people hold bitter grudges against those audacious enough to share. And then amongst all of this chaos towers the untouchable myth of originality, and the role of remixing is further ground into dirt.

Alas! No wonder some have proclaimed the death of art.

This could mean more art thiefs then before D:
Well British art thiefs.

You know that Russia and China don't respect US copyrights, even when signed and watermarked, so to really be safe, you'll have to stop posting work at all.

What the UK is doing is really shitty...but its nothing new. Anyone who just now started signing their work is really late for the party.

what im seeing is a simple case of everything is legal as long as the government gets their tax money out of it. ok not literally but you know what i mean, if i take a movie and sell copies on dvd im a pirate and get fined but if it was done in a way the government says is fine then im allowed to get away with it so long as my lips are firmly pressed to the ass end of any fucker with a badge.

simply put as long as the authorities get to feel like they allowed you to do it they will let you do anything but once they feel like you didn't beg for permission enough times before taking a piss they will have you jailed

Why go for the watermark? Can't a simple signature/link to website suffice? If people edit that out of the picture, they'll get into trouble if they use it commercially as "orphan work".

From a viewer's point of view, a watermark degrades the quality of the work. That'd be like removing the leftmost 10% of a movie screening in a theater so that "people can't camcord it properly". And as was pointed out above, if people want to steal your work, they will find a way to do so. Once you post something on the Internet, you just can't be sure that what you put online will never be used by someone else; after all, that's the very nature of the Internet.

If you watermark your work, you degrade the end user's experience in an attempt to protect yourself against something obscure and uncertain, without even being sure it'll work.

Just sign your works. If people wish to respect you, they will; if they don't, they won't. That might be pragmatic, but I'm afraid it's closer to reality. Don't overstress over these issues as they will oh-so-rarely happen, and you have so many tools at your disposal to defend yourself, as long as you sign your works - because what is seen as the greatest weakness against this new law (the easy distribution of the images across the web) is also its greatest strength: if your image is worth being taken over by a large company, it will also be popular enough that they'll be so many copies of your signed work that the company will never be able to prove it's orphaned. Watermarks are just overkills which hurt the "end user" more than anything else, in my opinion.

Extremely valid points. But its like comparing a small roadblock to a big roadblock. If somebody wants to get around a roadblock bad enough, they will. But less people will attempt it if the roadblock is bigger.

A watermark doesn't 'hurt' the user at all. If its transparent enough the person can still see the whole image. When you watch the news, does the little icon in the corner saying what news station you are tuned into drive you crazy? Or can you just watch the news and ignore it?

Watermarks that are smack dab in the middle of an image, with the opacity not set low enough CAN ruin an image. But when they aren't, its simply a case of 'learn to ignore it'.

The issue is that if you watermark your work, you make it harder for respectful viewers to use your work under the CCL license, e.g. private use such as desktop wallpaper or framed pictures. If you look at a picture long enough, the small errors will just become more and more apparent ; watermarks just stare right back at you in those cases, which make the pictures inappropriate for such uses.

When I find a picture I like, I save it, making sure the artist appears somewhere (filename or signature), so if I ever use the picture privately, I can properly credit the artist. If the image is watermarked, I just skip it, because it immediately lowers the quality below what is acceptable to me.

Regarding the roadblock analogy: the issue is that you're not only targeting the people who want to do unlawful things ; you're targeting everyone. You're hurting everyone just to hit those 3% that are irresponsible.
Regarding the news icon: if I get the chance of watching a show with the channel watermark on or off, I'll just watch the one without. And if I get to see the same show with a channel watermark in the corner, yes, it'll bother me. It's not big enough to just make me skip the show, but it's bothering nonetheless - it's not because something is everywhere that it's not something bad.

Well then I'm sorry to tell you, but you just need to put up with it. Find another picture you like without a watermark to use as your wallpaper, or commission an art piece. As an artist, I give my commissioners a watermark free version of their picture.

An artist shouldn't have to 'avoid watermarking', something that makes a lot of us feel more comfortable and makes it much easier to find out what artist did an art piece, because somebody else wants to use it as their wallpaper. Not everybody can read signatures.

Plenty of artists watermark their work, so if you want a piece that isn't watermarked consider supporting that artist.

Sorry to hear you have an issue with watermarks.

Then with all due respect I have to question why you're putting your works to be publicly available on the Internet, if you don't want people to see them properly and make private use of them? It's not an issue of "someone not being able to read a signature"; the topic is about a law that would strip you of your un-watermarked work. It doesn't matter if people can't "read" your signature; you signed it, it's visible, in dozen of places on the web. No one can use that against you.

If it makes you more comfortable to use watermarks because you believe it will protect your work better, then I'm inclined to say that you're on the wrong way, and that's what I'm trying to explain here. It's not necessary to watermark your pictures to protect yourself from some foreign law, as long as you post them with a visible way to identify yourself, such as a website link and/or a signature. In the worst case you'll have to justify your works (e.g. defend your works in a court, which is very, very, very unlikely to happen), a signature is enough. You'll have your works signed and timestamped on dozen or even hundreds of places on the Internet; no "big company" can ever steal that from you.

It just leaves the private people who try to steal your work by pretending the pieces are theirs, which I concur happen much more frequently. As was pointed out earlier, if such people want to do that, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop them, besides not publishing your works on the Internet, which by its very nature is a place of sharing. Watermarking won't stop these people, and will only hurt the "normal" viewers, who are there to admire your works. I believe your fight should be to make sure your works are displayed in the best possible way, because that's how you're going to please your trusted audience and sell yourself as an artist, not doing everything you can so that the works you pinned on a board in a public place in the middle of the most crowded city in the world won't ever be copied by someone else.

Some viewers don't care for watermarked pictures; some do. What does it mean, then? It means that pragmatically, you will reap nothing positive (no extra viewers, no extra protection, no extra quality), and you will reap an uncertain amount of negative side-effects (drop in quality & loss of viewers). Watermarking just hurts everyone involved regardless of whether or not they respect the artist.

I'm not telling "this is terrible, don't do this" ; this is my opinion and experience as someone who watched, supported and worked with artists for more than a decade. You're free to do whatever you want with your works - because freedom is also the very nature of the Internet, and I can't but support that wholeheartedly. I'm just telling you that watermarking your works 1) provides no more security than a signature, 2) will make you lose 100 watchers for every "art thief" you might drive away.

Whether the reason you're publishing your works is being seen or being commissioned or both, watermarking your works will hurt both without giving you anything in return.

Then let me say this. I am absolutely losing out on nothing by watermarking. I am doing great with my watermarks, I have plenty of watchers and business, and if people want to disrespect an artists decision to water mark their works by editing it against their will then that is their call. Many people cannot tell who an artist is if an image is posted elsewhere, especially if people dont credit. By watermarking people can see who it was done by clearly rather than track down a fancy signature. There is no difference between a watermark and a URL pasted onto an image. Viewers who cannot look past a watermark, and thus decide to not watch me because of it, are not my problem sorry.

That is actually a very good argument.

One thing though - people have different reasons for posting artwork on the internet. However, I will simplify these into two categories: to share with others, or to use commercially. I wholeheartedly agree with you for the former, but for commercial use it's quite a different situation. In that case, the use of watermarks or other anti-piracy methods is important for marketability, and the loss of quality may be intentional and drastic to discourage people from using without paying. The problem is that in real life, the lines are not so clearly drawn, and artists often take a position somewhere in the middle of the two.

I believe the issue might just be semantics again.

This it what I mean by a watermark: http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&.....www.watermarkfactory.com%2Fresources%2Fsamples%2F&ei=oXCAUdKrF8XdPZ_cgNgI&bvm=bv.45645796,d.bGE&psig=AFQjCNHKVb5lTu1aIB6kJ6BHbsPuqMc21w&ust=1367458317798572

The "Art by Tartii", I call that a signature: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10489949/

My point is about the former. The latter, as you say, is harmless enough.

Ah, the fun of semantics. Yes, we did have completely different understandings. xD
Thus my frustration you were so bothered by the 'watermark' I use.

Glad that was cleared up.

Sorry - I often have the issue of diving headfirst into a debate and realizing much later that actually, we were speaking of different things x)

Hmm... Do those sites usually strip XMP information?

Honestly, that law is just fucked up. I can't believe that they managed to pass it, and with so many people not aware of it at all.


anyway...

I consider signatures and watermarks to be two very different things. Signatures are used for the purpose of identifying the artist, while watermarks are an anti-piracy technique where the quality of the work is intentionally destroyed such that it is only a preview of the real thing.

Honestly, if you intend to share your art in the first place, choosing to use watermarks or similar techniques will hurt you more than it benefits you.

Under this law, the presence of a signature appears to be enough to identify an author. Therefore, this law will not be enough to allow people to freely steal your work. If someone were to tamper with the work and redistribute it, they will have performed copyright infringement even under this new law. In other words, you are safe as long as there is any identification of the artist at all on the work. If someone was to remove that intentionally, you would theoretically be able to file a lawsuit against them.