Is it really a big deal if you remove a photographer's watermark and not give them credit?

As a photographer, I’ve seen countless instances where watermarks have been removed from photographs and credit has not been given to the original photographer. It’s a common issue in the photography industry and it’s important to understand why giving credit is crucial.

Most people don't realise this but removing a photographer's watermark is a violation of copyright. The watermark serves as a visual representation that the image is the property of the photographer and shouldn't be used without their permission. When a watermark is removed, it becomes much harder to prove that the image is actually yours and that someone else hasn't just stolen it.

Also, giving credit to the photographer is an act of respect. It shows that you value the time, effort, and skill that went into capturing and editing the image. To me, each image is a work of art, from capture to print.

Now, I personally do not chase down clients for not giving me credit, but I greatly appreciate it when they do. It's always a nice feeling to see that someone appreciates your work and is willing to give you the recognition you deserve. And when people don't edit my images and tag me in social media posts using my photos, it shows that they respect my work and understand the value I bring to the table.

In conclusion, removing a photographer's watermark and not giving credit is a big deal. It’s a violation of copyright and an act of disrespect towards the photographer. So next time you come across a photographer's image, think twice before removing their watermark and make sure to give them the credit they deserve.

Pictured is the super cute assistance dog Ziva, and no her pet parent Courtney isn't a photo theft. She is super awesome, and I thought Ziva's facial expression was way too fitting.