A debate recently raged on Threads: should you watermark your images?
Despite it being a seemingly innocuous question, there are some photographers who are surprisingly passionate about the topic.
“Looks terrible, and anyone who is going to steal your image can easily remove the watermark with AI anyway!” said one.
“I used to watermark my photos because I was worried about someone stealing them. Looking back, it seems a bit silly now, but we all live and learn,” said another.
“The bigger the watermark, the weaker the photography,” opined a third.
Sure, some watermarks are ugly. They can distract from the image and, as many pointed out, they’re easy to remove. So why bother?
I’m not proposing splattering your name repeatedly all over the photo as if fired from a paint gun, but for me, a neat logo or signature in the corner is no different from an artist signing a painting.
It’s a subtle reminder that someone made this, and owns the copyright. My watermark matches the logo on my website and is part of my brand. I think it looks smart and professional.
Of course, I know it won’t stop a determined thief. If someone really wants to steal your photo, they will. But most people aren’t malicious, they’re just clueless. They see a pretty image online and assume it’s free to use. They don’t know the law, and they rarely credit the photographer.
When that happens (and it often does), my watermark is my way of asserting ownership and making sure I get the credit I deserve.
And when it comes to the thieves, it’s even more useful. If someone crops or clones it out, that’s not accidental. That’s proof of intent, and it gives me a stronger legal case if I need to chase them for payment.
So no, my watermark isn’t ‘terrible’. It’s my digital signature. My quiet little “I made this, please don’t nick it” in the corner.
And if it makes you look at it? That’s a win!
