Should I put my name on prints

As a beginner to the marketing of my photographs, I have this question. Should I put my name on my prints? Should I put the copyright designation on my prints? What is the "standard" if there is one?
Thanks in advance.
Ralph Kerr

Ralph - From what I've seen (I don't sell myself) there shouldn't be anything in terms of an electronic name or copyright on the print. Most people sign the print by hand, either along the border (under any matting that may be done) or in a contrasting color in the corner of the print itself (much like a painter would typcially do). Either way, you should definitely sign it. One thought might be to find an art or photography fair and see how the people there are doing it.

Ralph,,,I sign my prints in the corner with a pen I buy at wal-mart. Its in the fabric/craft area of the store. It comes in gold and silver and has a fine point on it. The pens that you have to shake are not good as they blob at times and create a mess. The pens at Wal-Mart are made for signing photo's. They cost under $2.00. Also I Limited Edition my prints and I also place the Edition above my name. I've been signing my prints as described for the last 20 some years without a negative feedback. Your customer will look for your name. You can also sign it on the mat. If you mess up your signature PEC 12 will take it off for you.

I sell a lot of prints. My customers want me to sign them. I have offered not to because I see no permanence to my work, but they insist. The perception seems to be that it adds apparent value.

They also want a real signature, not a digital signature. I sign just above the mat in the lower right hand corner.

I would ask my customers and get their opinions. I think they will be the same.

I wonder sometimes if lack of signature doesn't suppress my online sales.

MD

I'm left handed, so I've switched to a digital signature, but I should say I'm not selling many photos yet. Trying to sign with those pens left handed is just about impossible. I like the digital signature because I can make it much more subtle and choose colors and line weights appropriate for each individual image. I want people to look at the photo, not my signature. From my perspective, God made the picture, I'm just some guy who took a photo of it, but that's just me.

Ditto to what Steve related. Since I sell unmatted rolled prints, besides the subtle digital signature right on prints, I also hand sign on the white space border though that ought not be visible after the customer mats or frames a print. What I really really hate is with an expensive large print that I'm selling for several hundred dollars having to sign on top of the visible print while realising how easy it is (for me) to muff it without any chance to erase such a blemish. My signatures are not that bad handwriting wise but I can't say I'm particularly consistent due to learned impatience.

More signature information and an image of my digital signature at my below website under the sub-page link "Printing & Processing Technology" then down that page under "The Prints" section. ...David

If your prints are portraits of people, it's fairly standard in that segment of the photo industry to have a signature on the image itself rather than in a border. We have an embossing machine we use on anything 11x14 and under, but hand-sign everything larger. In our case that has paid off bigtime. Folks aren't above taking a print to one of the many copying companies or services to have dupes made to pass out to friends and family. The signature and/or copyright notice usually works as a set of brakes on such companies. And yes, clients will try that in spite of our verbal explanation of copyrights and written explanation on the print order the clients sign.

I don't sell photos but I say you need to put your name on them. Hank is dead on about people trying to copy photos. I spent about 15 years doing part time work for a local studio. My main job, copping photos and printing B&W. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "This is my photo, I paid for it" despite the copyright on the photo. We would try and explain about copyright laws and tell them they would have to bring us a signed copyright release from the photographer/company before we could copy it. To a couple of the more "insistant" ones we have even went ahead and priced the job, usually at around $150,000, telling them that $100,000 was for what we would loose in the lawsuit and the rest was for our trouble. For some reason no one ever took us up on the offer.

Bruce

Pretty much everyone who purchases a photograph wants it signed. This makes me feel that they like my work well enough to be proud of my signature on it. If that were not the case I would not want to sell to them anyway. But---I do always sign my work in the least conspicious place so as not to distract form the photograph.