Proposal: Should we add a watermark image when a photo is uploaded?

Question

Hi WikiTreers, 

Paul Bech has suggested that we add a watermark of some sort to images when they are uploaded to WikiTree.  

One reason he brought this up is that he has noticed many photos he has uploaded as part of our Cemeteries Project showing up on other sites.  We know it's inevitable that this will happen but we might be able to get some benefit out of it if there is a WikiTree watermark on the images.   

You can see an example of what Paul has done on some of the images he uploaded here: https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Quarmby-94

This would not be difficult for us to implement from a technical perspective. 

 Some things to consider:

1. Is this something that we should do?  Would you want your uploaded images watermarked like this?

2. If so, what should the watermark be?  One thing to keep in mind, if it were to be the URL of the profile to which it was originally uploaded, the URL could be changed, the image could be added to other profiles, etc., so something else might be a better option.

3. One idea might be to watermark the 75 pixel thumbnails and the 300/500 pixel wide versions we automatically create on upload but not watermark the full-size original. We'd then block non-members from accessing the full-size originals. 

Please share your thoughts below!

Thanks!

 

 

Comments

No. Isn't wikitree all about sharing, and for free. A watermark, especially like the one shown is so ugly, it ruins photos. Who cares who uses your photos ... I love seeing my stuff shared and I wouldn't have half as much to share if folk hadn't shared with me. So I say NO - don't add ugly ownership watermarks.

---

Also, if everything I had uploaded was watermarked then what has been given to me and credited by me would suddenly be marked seemingly owned by wikitree, and that is very wrong. I have a police photo for example which I was given permission to upload by the NZ Police on the condition it was clearly marked as being from them and as not to be used on any commercial site or in any commercial form - they would not be happy if suddenly it had a wikitree watermark. I would probably have to remove it. And then the many descendants and family members of one of NZ's most colourful characters would miss out on seeing his cheeky face. 

If folk want to watermark thier own stuff all good and well, but watermarking by default is crossing boundaries of actual ownership, and could too be seen as advertising.

---

JPEGs were designed to degrade upon downloading, this is entirely unnecessary.

---

I like the 3rd option. I blocked my photos on ancestry because I found them on other trees marked as their photo. I don't mind the access to shared information, but I draw the line at photographs. If the photo was obtained through a site like wikimedia, that's one thing. Photos are posted there by folks who mean to have them shared, and to be attributed for the photograph. Too many people on the internet think that just because it's "out there," it's a free-for-all.

It should be up to the photo uploader, though, whether or not to watermark. Some people don't mind having their photographs shared with any and everyone.

---

Even the third option is immoral because the images do not belong to wikitree and a watermark in any form insinuates they do. It is also free advertising which for me is a problem, I would literally have to remove many images uploaded solely on the basis that this site is commercial free. Wikitree may not place ads anywhere, but they are affiliated with my.heritage who do, and that generates free advertising for that site too. We have over 17 million profiles here because of what wikitree is, unique among other sites, free, and all about sharing. Even Peter Bech who as Eowyn says above made the proposal, states on his profile "Wikitree is all about sharing". I think wikitree would be getting into very dangerous ground were this to go ahead.

As for blocking non-members from re-using images I think that would be a very sad day for wikitree were that to come about. My take on wikitree is that I share unconditionally and it is my pleasure to do so. I so hope this does not happen.

---

If I upload a photo of my family to WikiTree or Ancestry or wherever, I don't really mind if people reuse the photo or else I would not have uploaded it.  I don't want to see watermarks on the photos as that detracts from the image when I print the tree with the photos.

How does this improve Wikitree or encourage contributions?

Vicki

---

A wikitree "watermark" may also be detrimental to wikitree. Wikitree emphasizes sources and collaboration, with the intent to be as accurate as possible. It may be that, some day, wikitree will have a reputation as the "best place" to go for genealogy.

If someone lifts a "watermarked" picture from wikitree to use elsewhere:

1) wikitree is not in control of it's use: good, bad or indifferent.
2) any explanation or discussion of the image will likely be left behind.
3) but wikitree's reputation goes with, and becomes part of, that "use".

I don't want an image uploaded to wikitree by me to be used for any intent other than the reason I posted it. Knowing that copying images will happen, and likely be done without discussion or explanation, I'd prefer not to be an involuntarily source for someone else's purpose.

---

I agree with the majority that this is a bad idea and ruins photos.  Wikitree is collaborative.  Collaborate means SHARE!  I am posting ALL of my research (although it is going to take me a loonngg time to finish) largely because Dad prompted me to get all of our research online somewhere to share it with our family and future generations who may seek this information out at some point.  Chris can tell you I asked a LOT of questions back at the beginning about this before I ever became active on Wikitree because I wanted to be clear that what Dad wanted was what we would be getting.  Having said that, I abhor the photos on findagrave that have watermarks--it takes away from the photo of one's loved ones' burial somehow for me and I just find it distasteful.  I don't want to see my photos watermarked all up here either for the same reason..Grandma is grandma and she doesn't need distractions on her picture.  I don't want to see it on photos of myself either.  :)

---

My sentiments, also.  If I wanted credit or protection from piracy for any photo I upload, I would not add it to any internet site.  The whole purpose of working with WikiTree is for the collaboration that the site promotes.  As long as we who contribute to WikiTree keep working together, then we can become a group that sets the standard for other sites by encouraging those who contribute to them do so lovingly, willingly, and in the spirit of sharing.  Hope this makes sense.

Answer 1

I have mixed feelings about this proposal.  I understand the rationale, but I really don't see what benefit would be gained.  Many of the photos I've posted here aren't mine anyway.  In all cases I have identified the sources, and if credit were to be given for them, it shouldn't go to me or to this site.  I think we all understand that this is a public web site, and whatever we put here is up for grabs.  If we don't accept that, we don't put it here, and I think those who have offered photos get that as well.  I see the long term value of the site as giving us a platform to share all of the info we develop with our many living cousins and with our descendants long after we're gone.  I can't imagine how the site would gain that much stature by adding its "brand" to some of the content.

And BTW, I see that the photo you linked to is both watermarked and copyrighted.  Isn't that a bit of overkill?  If we do go ahead and adopt this proposal, I hope we can do it in a way that's a bit less intrusive.  Just my humble $0.02 worth.

Comments

Afterthought:  I also see on the link that I could easily crop out the watermark if I wanted to "steal" the photo.  If we do this, it shouldn't just be non-intrusive, it should be done in a way that couldn't easily be cropped or cloned or otherwise "photo-shopped" out.

Answer 2

I'm new to the forum so I haven't quite worked out how to reply to comments but I completely agree with Nicky.  Like Nicky, I joined WikiTree because it was free and  the ethos matched my own.

If you upload an image and you own it and you want attribution for that image then watermark it yourself.

The images I'm uploading (for the most part) do not belong to me but I have added attribution via a comment/source description.  These should not be watermarked with a WikiTree logo and if this suggestion was to be implemented I would cease uploading images (and take down any that I have uploaded thus far).  This would be to the detriment of the WikiTree community.

At the end of the day, if you share anything on the internet you cannot reasonably expect to retain ownership or control how your content is used or expect attribution.  It's the internet.  Users do what they like.

In peace.

 

Answer 3

I agree with the comments on WikiTree being about sharing and it might belong to someone else and putting this watermark it could be seen as WikiTree 'owning' it.

I think it should be an option for the person uploading the photo if they want to add the watermark for their own personal reasons, like the cemetery project. But then again if people really don't want to share the photo they shouldn't upload it to WikiTree.

Answer 4

I think Natalie makes some good points. Maybe we could provide an easy way for our members to watermark photos on upload -- I don't even know if that's technically feasible. This way they could choose the type of watermark that gets applied, or if they want it at all.

Also, I do think it's reasonable to prevent non-members from downloading the full-size photos. If someone is a full member and has signed the Honor Code, they've promised to respect points VI and VII of the Honor Code re: copyrights and giving credit, which means they'll be aware that they should be citing the source of the photo if it's used somewhere else. Ideally, they would ask for permission from the person who posted it before using it again.

Comments

For members who would like a watermark option, I also see option 3 as the most viable option and as a reasonable compromise.

No one would be forced to use the watermark option, so those of us who want free access to our images aren't inconvenienced or disrespected.

Also, restricting access to the full-sized image to WikiTree membership will help prevent rogue usage of our precious photos.

I would, however, like to see a better watermarking option than that demonstrated on the referenced image. Are there ways to place a less obtrusive watermark across the image; a method geared toward anti-theft, anti-counterfeiting, anti-tampering, etc., that would make removal of the watermark extremely difficult?

If our goals are to protect the integrity of our uploaded images, as well as WikiTree's image and purpose, then we should find a method that does a thorough job and fully accomplishes our goals.

Answer 5

I have uploaded portraits from the National Portrait gallery and other UK institutions  using their 'licence' or permissions including the required mention that they hold the copyright.(in the case of the NPG you have to submit a form each time  .Overprinting these images with wikitree copyright would  probably be illegal.The NPG actually challenged wikipedia , threatening legal action about the use of their images but then released these ones that can be used with attribution.
(Just seen the Paul's recent answer. If it were optional then obviously no problem

Answer 6

I originally raised the idea. My concept would be that watermarking would be optional. A default of the profile is could be added with a checkbox and the text of the url could be edited to something else.
I raised the idea because I have contributed thousands of photos to the wikitree cemeteries project and I am now seeing many of those images appearing on other sites. I am happy for people to add them to their family, but they just don't say where they got them. I would like the option to add a default profile I'd so that they would be able to look up the source of the photo and hopefully add their knowledge to wikitree.
As the original photographer, copyright belongs to me. I don't try to enforce that right, however, as I like to think I am donating to the genealogy community as a whole. I would just like people to know of the best source for info: wikitree.
Manually adding a url watermark to each of the 50000 gravestone photos I have taken is not an option.
So the main points again:
Watermark is optional
If selected it defaults to profile url
Text can be edited before it is applied

Comments

"Wikitree is about sharing" and that is why it's a wonderful site, and why it attracts membership, and why people put in so much effort. Stamping images would not encourage folk here - it would cheapen wikitree.

All good if you wish to watermark your photos because you want credit, and so you are doing so, making it clear in red they are yours. Personally I'd rather upload with no strings attached and make it super easy for folk to share. 

 

 

 

---

No. I don't want re ignition. I remove myself as manager from the profiles created. I feel you missed my point about watermarking being an option. At the moment I can only watermark as a batch, so I choose myself so people who view the photos copied to another site will know where they come from. A basic tenet of copying info is giving credit, and I am not seeing that happen. I would rather people knew that wiliteers are doing a lot of hard work to improve the standard of online genealogy. If they view a photo and don't know where it came from I don't see that as a positive. The option to watermark or not should be at the copyright holders behest. If someone does bot wish to watermark, they do not need to.
Also it may cause people to think again about the image they are using. Did it come from uncle Fred?

---

Not everyone desires credit, and if they do they can ask for it, as you have. You can't take on the world wide web, it's free - because the guy that invented it gave it away. We are so lucky he did. It has paved the way for sites like this to exist, pay it forward, and share, and share, and share.

ETA link: https://webfoundation.org/about/sir-tim-berners-lee/

 

---

Hi Paul,

I see where you're coming from (I can see both sides, even if I am of the viewpoint that images here should be watermark free and we upload 'at our own risk').

I think that even an optional watermarking feature may have to be approached with caution in case it is mistakenly used.  Perhaps a pop-up warning with something like 'Do you own this image?  If not, do not proceed'  or somesuch.  I can see some well-intentioned but misguided labelling and the possibility that all kinds of copyright hell could rain down on WikiTree if images were found across the internet emblazoned with the logo but belonging to a third party.

Having written that, Dennis pipped me to the post about editing out unobtrusive watermarking.  Sure, those who can't edit/can't be bothered will leave it in place but it only takes a two second crop.  The only way to guarantee a logo stays in place is stamping it right across the headstone!

---

Are the gravestones public property or do they belong to the family who paid for them? Should we be getting permission to photograph them? After 100 years (depending on the country) are they copyright free?

I'm not sure how I would feel if I came across a photograph of my little brother's grave stone on the web if it was watermarked. I may not be very happy about it to be honest.

Answer 7

I can't see a problem with people having the option to watermark their own photos in the way that Paul has done.  All he is doing is advertising Wikitree (which is great!).  There should be guidance as to when it is appropriate to watermark (ie only watermark if you took the picture yourself).

Answer 8

In looking through the images posted for the US President's Project as an example, most of the photos are NOT unique photos for Wikitree.   They were found elsewhere and added to Wikitree.   Putting a Wikitree Watermark on those kinds of photos seems disingenuous.

I think creating an option to Watermark is a better solution, but, like so many people have said, Wikitree is about sharing, so I am not sure that this is a high  priority in my book.

Answer 9

NO to the watermark idea! Ugly. Everything I ever uploaded to F.A.G. has been shared all over by others, so I am passed that.

Answer 10

I see no point to a watermark that doesn't explicitly state who, if anyone, actually owns the image's copyright (when relevant). Such a watermark should not include the WikiTree name except those images actually owned by WikiTree.

I also see no point to a watermark that can easily be cropped from the image. Only a watermark that would require excessive effort to remove would be of any value.

That said, I agree with those who say don't upload images that you aren't willing to share - even outside WikiTree.

Answer 11

An opt-in watermarking function would be useful for WikiTree to provide to volunteers and future researchers because, when used well, it would make tracing the provenance and copyright of an image easier for the next genealogist who finds it.  

It would be / could be the digital equivalent of finding your great-aunt's handwriting on the back of a photograph in the family album.  In a best-case scenario, a WikiTree watermark would feel similarly reliable to family historians.

Answer 12

Anyone who wants to maintain control of their photos can put their own watermark on them.  There are programs to do this and you can use photoshop, powerpoint or any other number of programs to accomplish this.  I see no reason for wikitree to have a dog in this fight.

As for my ancestors photos - the ones that I own and scan, I'm going to make them freely available to anyone (for non-commercial purposes) in order that cousins can share.  Its the least I can do as I've enjoyed the photos from so many other unknown cousins.

Comments

There are programs to do this and you can use photoshop, powerpoint or any other number of programs to accomplish this.  

This is a really good point, and proponents of the original proposal should try to articulate what would be added to our shared tree by providing this function that can't be obtained in other applications.  As you say, there are already many widely available programs that can alter images.

In my situation, one of my favorite features about WikiTree is being able to work on family history on three desktop computers I have access to, each with a different operating system and browser.  Because WikiTree provides an OS-independent (and mobile-accessible) user interface for key genealogy functions like connecting ancestors as relatives and attributing information to sources.  All my work is rendered machine- and human-readable by WikiTree without having to be manually converted.  

However, because I regularly use different hardware to access WikiTree, I am unlikely to install and learn image-editing software on any of the computers, much less on all of them.  And even if I did, it would require some amount of fiddling to configure all three to produce nice-looking watermarks on images I might upload.

So the result is that I am unlikely to watermark any images I upload, even though I could, if I invested the time and effort into learning a new application on each of the three computers I use. 

But if WikiTree decided to offer a watermarking function on image uploads, I would probably use it.  And, as more users engage with WikiTree on mobile devices, it would be easier for them to upload watermarked images without installing an image editor on their phones.

The value of WikiTree volunteers watermarking their image uploads is probably, at best, an unknown.  The original proposal focuses on the advertising benefit to WikiTree.  I think there's also historical value to watermarks.  The idea strikes me a rather low priority compared to other issues facing WikiTree.  But perhaps it can be easily implemented without slowing progress on more crucial matters.  If it was, I would use it to add information to our shared tree that will not be added otherwise.