FineArt America and Google Images

[Maxal]

I have been very surprised to day when I search for "my name" on google image.
All the photos that I have put on FAA appears in the first pages.
The photos are all 900 pixels large, and without any watermark.

If these images cannot be stollen to be used for printing that require high-resolution images (magazines, etc�), they can be esaly stollen to be used on the web where a 900 pixels large size fits to 90% of the needs (blogs, news etc.)

I wrote to FAA to tell them that I find absolutely not normal, and not correct, that these images can be available to Google in such size and without watermark.

They very gently answer me that:
"I am afraid, if you wish your images removed from Google then you must take them off the internet or add them to a passworded folder.

Google is a search engine and it is how people find our art and where most customers come from.  Google searches all sites and grabs the images, with the link, for people to find when looking for art in that subject.  Whatever site you add your images to for sale will work in the same way.

The images Google have are the same images you are showing on your profile pages.  No larger.

We cannot stop Google from visiting one artist out of the whole site.

Unfortunately no site can protect work from thieves who are adamant on having an image that is on their page."


Of course I know how Google grabs images around, but images from other sites that you can find on Google are not so large and are marked with a watermark.

I know that the watermark on an image is not a very big material protection (it is very easy to remove), but it can be a moral protection, as images without a watermark could (can) be considered as free image for the most of the internet users.

So, what to do?

[Microbius]

Watermarks are not all that easy to remove, they definitely do their job for most normal users who don't have a clue how to clone them out.

FAA need to improve their watermark, it has been bought up to them lots of times and they don't seem interested in giving artists the option of using a better, bigger one if they want to protect their work. 

[ShadySue]

Watermarks are not all that easy to remove, they definitely do their job for most normal users who don't have a clue how to clone them out.

FAA need to improve their watermark, it has been bought up to them lots of times and they don't seem interested in giving artists the option of using a better, bigger one if they want to protect their work.

However, they have said they are developing one which will stand out better against a pale background, after a lot of artist requests.
"I have asked Sean for at least a drop shadow on the watermarks so they show on white and he has agreed. It will be happening soon"
about halfway down the Official Suggestion List page
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=254264


Just do a lot of searches in real Fine Art and Gallery websites and you'll find very, very few use watermarks. It's really only stock photographers who are worried, because they have a market for small images. Fine artists know that if someone lifts a small image of their work, they were probably never going go be a print buyer, and if they blog about it, using an image, it might do them good.

Check for yourself - some huge contemporary art names have their work out there with no watermark. I've already found some big name art photographers on FAA, and they don't put watermarks on their work, again because they're not trying to sell small sizes as stock images. It could be argued that stock and 'Fine Art' are different markets, and the subset of those that are concerned is relatively small.

The whole Google Images thing is a wider issue and there are posts here and elsewhere rehearsing concerns about it.

[steheap]

The photos are all 900 pixels large, and without any watermark.

Maxal

Did you watermark the images on FAA and the ones in Google Images are unwatermarked (which would be a much more serious issue in my mind), or are they just displaying images you are displaying on your FAA site without watermarks?

Steve

[sharpshot]

I did a search with my name and the FFA photos have the same watermark they have on their site.  Perhaps the OP doesn't use watermarks on the FAA site?

[steheap]

I didn't put watermarks on mine, but I think that was a mistake. Anyone know if you can retrospectively add watermarks to existing images?

Steve

[rimglow]

I didn't put watermarks on mine, but I think that was a mistake. Anyone know if you can retrospectively add watermarks to existing images?

Steve

Yes. Just re-edit.

[luissantos84]

my first 11 pictures have watermark on FAA website but on my personal FAA website they aren't showing up, must be a bug I guess

[Microbius]

......Just do a lot of searches in real Fine Art and Gallery websites and you'll find very, very few use watermarks. It's really only stock photographers who are worried, because they have a market for small images.....some huge contemporary art names have their work out there with no watermark....

100% agree, it is only of concern to people who also license their work in other ways, like us.

That's why I would say they should give the option for those who want it, not make it compulsory.

[madelaide]

I haven't checked lately, but their small watermark placed at a corner was the reason I didn't upload much there. I have some floral shots in which the watermark was on the black background - totally useless. In Imagekind's forum, members criticize those who insisted in at least an option for watermarks - which in the end was introduced.

[PaulieWalnuts]

I've found the same problem with my 900 pixel FAA images on Google Images. The watermark is near useless and can either be easily cloned or cropped out.

I've found quite a few of my images on the Internet that are cropped almost perfectly to cut off the FAA watermark. Hmmmm.

900 pixel images are a Small size on IS so with all of the XS and S sales we get this is plenty big to satisfy most web usage for thieves.

FAA's attitude in the past has been dismissive with "watermarks hurt your sales" and "we're not changing it." And a lot of FAA contributors don't care if their images are stolen. Seems pretty crazy to me. Why bother selling anything at all then? Why not just give it all away and let people use your free images to make prints?

People are stealing my images through them and they don't seem to care.  And I make more in stock in a couple of days than I make with them in a month so I think FAA isn't leaving me with much of a choice.

[madelaide]

One funny  thing is that people in Shutterpoint - where we can see if someone downloads a comp image - constantly complain about the ability of any visitor downloading a watermarked 700pix image (and we can put any watermark we want, in any position we want), but are fine about having their photos in FAA with that useless watermark just because they sell there.

[JohnMullins]

Hey,
you can never wish a site admin to watermark all the images on of his site, firstly, technology is not fully supported for such a task. Watermarking images one by one will cost a lot of time, even batch watermark tool can be time consuming thanks to users uploading not in the same time. Secondly, you never know the site add a solid watermark. A better way to guarantee this is to add watermark yourself( newbielink:http://www.watermark-software.com/add-watermark.html?A8M [nonactive]). Just tell you on this. You may not know that Youtube watermark (check here to know: newbielink:http://www.watermark-software.com/add-channel-logo-on-youtube.html?A8M [nonactive]) unstable watermark to videos. So what you can expect other site to protect your ownership. If they had added a watermark to yours, it's already better than other sites.
Oh, if you sell your images to a site, then your copyright becomes site copyright, they will have the right to decide whether to add watermark or not instead of you. 

[ShadySue]

Hey,
you can never wish a site admin to watermark all the images on of his site, firstly, technology is not fully supported for such a task.

The stock sites seem to manage perfectly well (even if they sometimes ruin a thum by positioning), even the technologically inept one.

Technology isn't the issue.
The issue is that very few Fine Art sites use watermarks, as their artists generally aren't selling stock, so they don't feel a few thum steals are a problem, indeed, it could well help them.

[4seasons]

if you sell your images to a site, then your copyright becomes site copyright

Really? 

[ShadySue]

if you sell your images to a site, then your copyright becomes site copyright

Really? 

Yes, but normally we don't sell images 'to' a site, we sell images 'via' a site.
Big difference.

[PaulieWalnuts]

Hey,
you can never wish a site admin to watermark all the images on of his site, firstly, technology is not fully supported for such a task. Watermarking images one by one will cost a lot of time, even batch watermark tool can be time consuming thanks to users uploading not in the same time. Secondly, you never know the site add a solid watermark. A better way to guarantee this is to add watermark yourself(watermark). Just tell you on this. You may not know that Youtube watermark (check here to know: Your unknown Youtube Watermark ) unstable watermark to videos. So what you can expect other site to protect your ownership. If they had added a watermark to yours, it's already better than other sites.
Oh, if you sell your images to a site, then your copyright becomes site copyright, they will have the right to decide whether to add watermark or not instead of you. 

I only got two things out of this reply

None of what you said made sense to me

You have a watermarking tool to promote

[Holmes]

i recently took all of my photos off
FAA
Crated
Viewbug
Image brief
500px

the ROI was not worth having my work stolen for web sites.

[stockastic]

The FAA guy (Sean Broihier) believes watermarks hurt sales.  He's said so on the FAA forum.  So watermarks are pretty low on his business development priority list.  He's spending his time on  T-shirts and hoodies.

I think he's right - watermarks do discourage sales of 'wall art'.   

[Hildegarde]

you can write them and have them put watermarks on all retroactively one time.

[shiyali]

i recently took all of my photos off
FAA
Crated
Viewbug
Image brief
500px

the ROI was not worth having my work stolen for web sites.

How did you delete images from Crated? One by one or is there a bulk option?

[landbysea]

'You wanna know what else discourages sales of wall art? People being able to take FAA images from Google that are big enough to print an 8x12 with."
Hard to say if that is true or not. I know small images make up about 2% of my sales. For example last month i sold 10 prints over 20 inches. Maybe there are hundreds of people out there just downloading my 900 pixel image and making small prints. but i think that it is more likely it is fairly rare.


"the ROI was not worth having my work stolen for web sites."

They don't actually steal, they download a copy with no license. I am not sure where the loss comes in. As a stock seller I have thousands of images all over the internet that can be downloaded. Why would I not use my own images to promote my own products when I allow those who license my images to do so?  I am not going to stop making real money because of imaginary losses.

[PaulieWalnuts]

'You wanna know what else discourages sales of wall art? People being able to take FAA images from Google that are big enough to print an 8x12 with."
Hard to say if that is true or not. I know small images make up about 2% of my sales. For example last month i sold 10 prints over 20 inches. Maybe there are hundreds of people out there just downloading my 900 pixel image and making small prints. but i think that it is more likely it is fairly rare.


"the ROI was not worth having my work stolen for web sites."

They don't actually steal, they download a copy with no license. I am not sure where the loss comes in. As a stock seller I have thousands of images all over the internet that can be downloaded. Why would I not use my own images to promote my own products when I allow those who license my images to do so?  I am not going to stop making real money because of imaginary losses.

My experience is that the average person will take anything they can easily get and do whatever they are able with it. Mostly because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. If a person can copy an image off the internet and easily use it for their blog or make a print out of it why would they buy it? The answer is they wont buy it so why should I make it easy for them to take it? If the image has an unavoidable watermark the person will most likely keep looking until they find a suitable image that doesn't have a watermark. A small percentage will spend some time removing the watermark.

It's human nature to try and get something for free. When you remove all of the free options then people will pay. This is what's happening with newspapers. All news used to be free. Slowly news sites are charging money or are going out of business. Eventually when the weeding-out process is done we'll have only pay based news. If you want access you'll need to pay.

True, people can download and copy my images from all kinds of places including from clients. But what matters is the license type. All of my RF images have no way of tracking infringers which is why I'm no longer doing RF for my new work. I have a simplified RM license so I know who has permission to use it. Those who don't have permission will be contacted.

They don't actually steal??? What do you call taking something without paying for it? If I go to a store, take a product, and walk out what does that make me? An undocumented customer? I have a feeling this will lead to the argument "they weren't going to pay for it anyway so who cares of they take it". If they weren't going to pay then they don't get the image. Simple. Part of the reason we have the problem of "unlicensed customers" is that it's broadly allowed to happen with an "oh well" attitude from people like us.