How to kill your fanbase by watermarking artwork
That's right, I said it. I don't like watermarks in digital artwork. Of course, I'm more so referring to the ones that are plastered across the majority of the piece, or the ones that are completely detracting from the piece itself.
I'd like to touch on a few common excuses given to watermark digital art, and respond to them in turn.
Excuse #1: The artist's signature. Many digital artists make the excuse that they are doing the same thing any painter would do - signing their artwork. What they fail to realize is that most painters, sketch artists, or any other analog format artist does so in a meaningful and non-distracting way. Such signatures will typically be placed outside the piece, such as on the back, in the margins that will be covered by the frame, or somewhere else non visible. Another common method is to sign along a path within the piece, assuming the piece itself is large enough to afford such a signature. I've seen a number of cartoonists who draw with certain amounts of detail get away with it, though. Of course, integrating the signature within the artwork (as a part of it) has also been done. I can't remember the artist who was quite famous for his signature within the artwork, but needless to say it has been done (and by more than one artist).
Excuse #2: Safeguarding copyrighted artwork. Many artists don't want their works stolen, or used improperly. Its understandable, but artists don't have to go to such extremes. Typically, the people stealing your work aren't taking money away from you - they can't sell it, and they can't print it.. Unless you are dumb enough to provide a high enough resolution digital version for printing. Watermarking an 800x600 image isn't exactly necessary in that regard.
Excuse #3: Making it easier for someone to find the artist should they be interested in the artwork. Someone finds your artwork somewhere. That is absolutely wonderful. Problem is, they can't find out who did the piece.. Wait, what? Aren't they looking at it right on your portfolio? Implementing simple hotlinking protection (if you are hosting your artwork, and aren't on a site like DeviantArt) should be enough, but if you insist, pick a tasteful way to sign your piece.
Of course, you can always worry about someone cropping the signature out, can't you? Well, if you think having your name and web address plastered across the entire face of the piece is conducive to the piece itself, then go right ahead. Yeah, that's right - I'm talking about DeviantArt's watermarking option on full-views.
If you have so little respect for your artwork and your fanbase that you would find it necessary to diminish the quality of your art by utilizing an unsavory method of signing/watermarking, then go right ahead. I myself, as well as numerous artists in the digital medium are more apt to provide our fans with the art; not our name. You know what? I've got plenty of people who know my name, and that number keeps growing.
Amateur artists, take heed - watermarking doesn't build a name for your art, it kills the art.
I'd like to touch on a few common excuses given to watermark digital art, and respond to them in turn.
Excuse #1: The artist's signature. Many digital artists make the excuse that they are doing the same thing any painter would do - signing their artwork. What they fail to realize is that most painters, sketch artists, or any other analog format artist does so in a meaningful and non-distracting way. Such signatures will typically be placed outside the piece, such as on the back, in the margins that will be covered by the frame, or somewhere else non visible. Another common method is to sign along a path within the piece, assuming the piece itself is large enough to afford such a signature. I've seen a number of cartoonists who draw with certain amounts of detail get away with it, though. Of course, integrating the signature within the artwork (as a part of it) has also been done. I can't remember the artist who was quite famous for his signature within the artwork, but needless to say it has been done (and by more than one artist).
Excuse #2: Safeguarding copyrighted artwork. Many artists don't want their works stolen, or used improperly. Its understandable, but artists don't have to go to such extremes. Typically, the people stealing your work aren't taking money away from you - they can't sell it, and they can't print it.. Unless you are dumb enough to provide a high enough resolution digital version for printing. Watermarking an 800x600 image isn't exactly necessary in that regard.
Excuse #3: Making it easier for someone to find the artist should they be interested in the artwork. Someone finds your artwork somewhere. That is absolutely wonderful. Problem is, they can't find out who did the piece.. Wait, what? Aren't they looking at it right on your portfolio? Implementing simple hotlinking protection (if you are hosting your artwork, and aren't on a site like DeviantArt) should be enough, but if you insist, pick a tasteful way to sign your piece.
Of course, you can always worry about someone cropping the signature out, can't you? Well, if you think having your name and web address plastered across the entire face of the piece is conducive to the piece itself, then go right ahead. Yeah, that's right - I'm talking about DeviantArt's watermarking option on full-views.
If you have so little respect for your artwork and your fanbase that you would find it necessary to diminish the quality of your art by utilizing an unsavory method of signing/watermarking, then go right ahead. I myself, as well as numerous artists in the digital medium are more apt to provide our fans with the art; not our name. You know what? I've got plenty of people who know my name, and that number keeps growing.
Amateur artists, take heed - watermarking doesn't build a name for your art, it kills the art.
1 Comments:
Nice to see someone else state so articulately almost precisely what I feel. A guy I watch on deviantART who doesn't usually watermark decided that a piece with a centre-weighted focus and lots of subtle diffuse tones under the stamp was a good one to start with though. It was almost a discourtesy to the photograph- it was lovely, but the watermark kills the image.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home