I've asked to place a copywrite statement on some images I made. A copywrite placed directly on the image destroys the composition. Is the Digimark a good alternative? And I wonder about the costs.
The most important thing the Copyright message is going to help you to do is to let prospective users know where your images were stolen from.
One good possibility is a format that looks like it's embossed into the image, because you can make it as intrusive or subtle as you like, and it's relatively difficult to remove. For example:
If you use the term on the image, e.g., Copyright © 2012 Michael Eighty, make sure you spell Copyright correctly.
I've asked to place a copywrite statement on some images I made...
Who asked and for what purpose? There are different ways to include copyright info (visible watermark/meta data) for different purposes. Digimarc and visible watermarking are two very different things to serve two very different purposes.
My client asked. He just wants to copyright the images I made for him. What are the differences between Digimarc, and visible watermarking, other than the visibility. I don't think he wants a copyright statement on the image as Noel suggested. By the way, sorry about the spelling.
Thank you . . .
Your goal is still not clear. Copyright is inherent in anything we produce. We do not need to "copyright" images. We already possess a copyright to our own work.
Does your client want hidden meta data embedded in the file that identifies the author to the few people and applications that can read that meta data?
Does your client want to prevent others from copying the image?