0
\$\begingroup\$

What are the basic rules to put a logo in photos which are taken by you?

Where to add a logo that makes a picture more beautiful rather than spoiling it?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Why are you putting a logo on? In many cases, you definitely want it to "spoil" the image so the image can't be used without removing the logo. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall ♦
    Commented Apr 3, 2017 at 14:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ pictures taken by me , cannot use anyone on social media without credit. so logo need on Picture. \$\endgroup\$
    – Parth
    Commented Apr 3, 2017 at 22:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ It just doesn't work like that. First of all, people can and will use your photo without credit regardless of logo. Second, a dedicated hacker can easily remove any logo with a little PhotoShop-fu . And finally, you might want to read up on the ToS for social media sites,many of which take ownership of any image you upload. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Commented Apr 4, 2017 at 12:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @CarlWitthoft Most don't take ownership, they just require you to grant them unlimited usage including selling that usage to anyone else. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Apr 4, 2017 at 17:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is watermarking worth it? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Apr 4, 2017 at 17:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

There is no Official Rule for this, of course. General practice suggests that a lower-corner will be less intrusive, and that in left-to-right reading cultures, probably the lower-right. However, this is very context-dependent — if the composition puts an important element in that corner, don't cover it up.

So, as a very first pass, I'd say "tend towards the lower-right, but adjust on a per-image basis."

Bigger than that, though, there's....

Where to add a logo that makes a picture more beautiful rather than spoiling it?

In my opinion, anywhere within the image is distracting and annoying — effectively spoiling it. My recommendation is: don't do it. To me, such logos generally say "I am not a serious artistic photographer nor am I a real professional, but I made a logo so people think I am."

If you feel the need to protect your images from reuse... eh, I don't think this really helps much. It has a minor benefit in keeping your name attached on resharing, but I think only a minor one. People might be slightly less likely to share it, which is a win from a strict copyright perspective — but then, they're just gonna grab something else rather than paying you.

If you are very serious in making sure that the only use is through your direct approval, your only recourse is to spoil the image. I don't think this is the best choice for most photographers. As Tim O'Reilly said, "The problem for most artists isn't piracy, it's obscurity."

Sign your work on the back, or on the matting. In a digital sense, put it in the metadata. If you must, you could add a white or black border and put your logo there. Yes, this can easily be cropped off — but it's the only way to not "spoil" the image.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd add thin "border" above and below or all around to make a room for affiliation, name or logo and adress. In many cases violators just put the image without edit. If they are serious of getting money from selling your photographs, nothing can prevent them effectively. \$\endgroup\$
    – Crowley
    Commented Apr 3, 2017 at 19:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well... any number of quite famous and respected canvas artists put their signature on their paintings. Usually in the lower-left or lower-right corner,but some prefer to incorporate the signature into some design feature of the picture. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Commented Apr 4, 2017 at 12:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.