Can really cut down the number of folks using your photos and perhaps tarnishing your reputation by association with a bait & switch.  Great post on it in this same forum, linked below.

My only additional suggestion is to make the watermark slightly transparent and across the middle of the photo so it's even harder for someone to remove without investing serious time & effort.  Many folks will claim it ruins a photo but a more discrete watermark along the edges can be easily cropped out.  For example, the picture below is still quite viewable but would be a pain to edit and use by someone else.  Play with the options to find what works best with your brand's image

Why do women post photos?  

Obvious answer:  because male sexual interest is based initially on female physical appearance.

Take a look at the Photo Only board.  Do you see watermarks slapped in several locations on each of those photos or in the middle (which is where the human eye usually first focuses)?

If I were a provider my main goal would be to have visually enticing photos that increase the chance they will result in clients.  Even if photos are "stolen" and used by another provider, so what?  What experienced guy makes his decision based solely on photos and does no further research?

(And, I would not contact any provider with photos like your sample; I would be concerned she was paranoid and that the session might be disappointing....even if she had decent reviews.)

The use of a watermark provides little to no value to anyone except the provider.  However, if it cuts down on their need to deal with pirates and the stress that evokes, then it can result in more time spent on useful activity.  Like me!

Totally agree with you that the watermark sample I showed was over the top.  A single watermark, diagonally across the middle, would serve much the same purpose.  One in a lower corner is more sophisticated but easily cropped out - it's a balance between brand identity and image protection.  The only way to keep a photo from being stolen is to never post it in the first place.

I've seen TER reviews which state the provider was NOT the person in the photos, and yet it's written against the owner of those photos.  The photo owner has not yet claimed that profile and doesn't know her business is being hurt, and the experienced folks will avoid her - precisely the clientele a new provider seeks to meet.

The idea of an experienced hobbyist choosing someone only on a photo is laughable to one who researches, and yet I have to wonder who posts reviews on TER to a profile when it was clearly NOT the person pictured?  If the photos have a watermark of the provider's name, then the bait & switcher will likely move on to easier sources.

This is a long-term gain for the hobby, with no immediate benefit to experienced clients.  Hence the posting on a Newbie board and directing it at providers.

They are usually placed on backpage, or a site I can easy trace using liveescortreviews.com

I caught one girl doing it and actually called her asking her nicely to remove my photos, and she did! She didn't realize I had reviews, when I know she really meant- I didn't think you would find out.

Also, the only watermark that would help is one to a website or phone number, if a girl can steal your picture, she will steal the name on it, too

Then again, my pics are hardly stolen because they are professional, and many of the provider hoping to steal photos are looking for selfies, so they appear more real and believable. when I use my selfies 1 time, they were stolen within 3 days- now I leave my photographers watermark so their ignorance continues to be my savior.

Not to mention, my lack of a chest sure as hell lowers the ability for girls to use my photos. And my tattoos

I've been a paying VIP here for 12.5 years (now posting less than I did before and using my alias) during which time I have read (all of) thousands of reviews.

Yes, I have seen reviews that say the ad photos did not show the provider doing the advertising (and that is why there is a review selection for "photo accurate").  Obviously, some women want to limit the online exposure of their bodies and instead of hiding only their faces, they hide their entire bodies by posting "phony" photos.  (This usually seems to be the case for AMP's, which have ladies rotating through at a regular rate.)

Anyone who has spent much time here has read reviews that say:

1) the photos were not accurate but they were a fair representation of the provider's appearance;
2) the photos resulted in a "bait and switch" and the gal on the other side of the door looked no where near as good as the photos; and,
3) the photos appeared to be earlier ones of the same lady, but were taken many years and pounds prior to the present.

However, I have NEVER see a review that by some quirk in the cosmos ended up being written about the female shown in the photo rather than the female whose phone number or email address was listed in the ad or was at the other end of the "reply" button in the ad.

Your assertion that reviews have been "written against the owner of those photos" rather than the provider who posted the ad would require so many missteps that I think it highly unlikely.  If you have a real example, please direct us to it.

Considering I filed a Problem Report that was resolved, the proof is no longer available to provide.  Perhaps I ran across the  one unicorn of such an event, and assumed (bad word scientifically) that it might be more prevalent.

Then again, I was researching a specific identity rather than reading assorted reviews, so my radar was set to high in a very narrow band for a very short period of time.  In other words, I was looking for two needles in a handful of hay in one day, rather than looking in a field of hay for 12.5 seasons.

Unlikely events can still occur, but their very rarity suggests they may go unnoticed.

Some of us want control over where we have our pictures and ads. Watermarking will help with both B&S and fake ad sites.

Fake ad sites are really common (there have been several other posts from various ladies who've discovered their photos on fake ads). I call them fake because they are not authorized or wanted.  In an automated fashion, these sites get content by going through the list of new reviews on TER, following the links on those to the TER profiles, and then following the links to various ad sites listed on the profiles (I've learned certain ad sites are targeted).  The fake ad site then creates a profile with TER's info plus the pics in the ad; the aim of those sites is to earn affiliate money by linking back to TER or other sites like Ashley Madison without creating original content (it's easier than it sounds).  Watermarking will NOT prevent pictures from being stolen by those sites as it's done by a scraper program, but watermarking will provide a little more incentive for the thief to remove the photos when pressed to do so because it will be obvious they are stolen to the ISP (and too many complaints to the ISP will cause problems for the thief).  

A B&S will probably try to remove the watermark if it's easy to do so, so I agree a semi-transparent watermark in the middle is the way to go.

If someone won't see me because my photos are watermarked in the middle, and they think I'm paranoid, so be it. For every person who does that, another will simply think I'm careful.  I have had my pictures used without my permission and was successful in fighting that, but it turned out to be a process. I want to make it difficult for a future thief.

I'm not seeing our daily dose of Brittney on the photo board today. What's up with that?

There are many ways to use photo rip offs, starting from

Real-Mary, Real-Mary-Ad, Real-Mary-Pics, Real-Mary-Phone, Real-Mary-Everything

1. A stolen pic can be used to siphon customers who think they are contacting the real Mary.

Susie uses Mary's REAL Pics in an ad for "Mary" but uses Susie's Phone and Contact info. Susie is pretending to be Mary to take advantage of Mary's reviews or good reputation.

On TER, guys report, "Watch out for Mary! She's a con artist using more than one phone and claims to be on Long Island and Manhattan at the same time." That hurts Mary's business and rep and it is not her fault.

2. A stolen pic can be used to create a completely new person.

Susie uses Mary's REAL pics in an ad for Susie with Susie's Phone and Contact info.

On TER, guys report, "Watch out for Mary! She uses multiple names and phone numbers and accounts! Must be a rip-off artist!" Once again, the picture thief has damaged Mary's business and reputation.

3. A stolen pic can be used on other sites, such as modeling sites, such European sites.

"Warning! Mary claims to be a Provider in NYC but I just found her pics on a modeling site in the UK. Mary must have stolen the models' pics!"  Well, it's actually the other way around, but too late to undo the damage done to Mary's business.

4. A stolen pic can be used by the robot-driven sites to increase the number of their ads (and, they hope, increase revenue as Kerri pointed out) but that can also lead to undesired calls, contacts and distractions to someone like Mary who wants to be in control of her ads and where they post.  

5. Have stolen pics ever ended up on non-filtered sites, such as Facebook or Pinterest? I don't know. But if Mary was assuming that the normal search engines (that have default filters for certain adult sites) wouldn't find her pics, they are now showing up in the main search engine hit lists. Now other parts of Mary's life is screwed up, not just her business life.

I'm sure there are other scenarios but I don't have the time to write them up. It may seem OK not to worry about your pics being stolen at first, but it could end up having a major negative impact.

All I know is, I don't mind the waterkmarks. They serve a useful purpose and authenticate the picture, especially is the watermark is a web address or phone number. (Unless it's a non-watermarked stolen pic with a new watermark added by the picture thief!

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE