RANT: stupid placement of watermarks on photos
- Thread starter michhy
- Start date
- Status
#2, If any bosses want to hire a photographer, pls look for me. (aka self-advertisement)michhy said:
Example:
Astin said:#2, If any bosses want to hire a photographer, pls look for me. (aka self-advertisement)
Example:
this is perfectly fine to me. i think what michhy was referring are those large ones that sit right in the middle of the photo or go right across it. totally spoils the photo.
madmacs said:
Yes, yes... those that steals the limelight from the photo itself... those obstrusive type. they are annoying. The one you used on your boat photo is fine, by all means. and oh by the way, that is a pretty nice photo. I cant get my eyes off it for more than 10 seconds...must die die see the details on the boats. veyr good composition.
michhy said:
shutter stock has theirs in the dead centre. personally i don't find it childish. those people that steal our work (ok maybe not mine cos my stuff is terrible), is probably an average viewer just like u and me. so, just try to visualise the pic without the watermark and you'll be a happier person.
I don't personally see what the fuss is all about. If people want to put watermarks on their photos, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to put black boxes or mosaic over the eyes of their models, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. If they want to post a completely blacked-out photo for comments, it's their prerogative to do so since it's their photo. Off the top of my head, I can think of any number of reasons why a watermark emblazoned right across the subject would be useful - it prevents leeches from ripping and posting onto a perverted website, or from using stock photos without paying, or from exploiting for commercial gain a model's photo without licence. It's not really that difficult to crop away a watermark or credit along the frame of a photo, but it really isn't much point for the potential leech to crop away the face of a model, or to slowly clone back the salient features. A lot of the guys and girls in here post up pictures of people without model releases, or with limited releases, and open themselves up to liability from leeches grabbing the same. Why shouldn't they be entitled to take whatever means they feel are necessary to protect themselves and their property?
At the end of the day, if somebody posts a picture for comments, give them the comments the picture deserves, for example, "Gee, nice picture, good framing, colors just right, a pity your watermark right across her boobs are distracting." Or, of course, everybody could just shoot film like I do, and run the risk of a really boring photo forum.
Just my 2-cents worth: everybody seems to be bashing on about self-righteous artistic purity while not really taking the copyright problem seriously.
At the end of the day, if somebody posts a picture for comments, give them the comments the picture deserves, for example, "Gee, nice picture, good framing, colors just right, a pity your watermark right across her boobs are distracting." Or, of course, everybody could just shoot film like I do, and run the risk of a really boring photo forum.
Just my 2-cents worth: everybody seems to be bashing on about self-righteous artistic purity while not really taking the copyright problem seriously.
tingchiyen said:
and its michhy's perogative to comment/rant about the placement of the watermarks...yes?
anyway its a free world. if ppl want to post photos on the net for comments/display/etc, they are of course free to put watermarks whereever they want. then again...leechers are probably free to leech too :think:
:bsmilie:
you guys don't know how bad this image leeching thing is. from what i see in many firms, it is TERRIBLE.
for example, online magazines are pretty popular nowadays, and these don't need high res images for their commercial purposes.
to put it frankly, even if the watermark is right at the centre, a fairly skilled DI artist will still be able to make good use of it. real protection comes with the real digital watermark which you need to register and pay for.
most watermarks we use only serve to deter opportunistic online users who are not good with DI from using them.
you guys don't know how bad this image leeching thing is. from what i see in many firms, it is TERRIBLE.
for example, online magazines are pretty popular nowadays, and these don't need high res images for their commercial purposes.
to put it frankly, even if the watermark is right at the centre, a fairly skilled DI artist will still be able to make good use of it. real protection comes with the real digital watermark which you need to register and pay for.
most watermarks we use only serve to deter opportunistic online users who are not good with DI from using them.
sk_2 said:
erm...can debate for ages and still be at square one. watermark, no watermark also no difference. as long as its posted somewhere the risk of getting leeched is there. :dunno:
so my point is...if you want to show off your photos, might as well show it off in all its glory. putting a huge logo smack in the middle will simply spoil the photo. and the funny thing is that wont stop the hardcore leeches. and so what if you own the copyright? yeah can prove the photos are yours. but its already posted on some shady website, and possibly already downloaded many times. sadly not all websites are as cooperative as hwz.
sk_2 said:why complicate matters,
and lift off somebody's watermarked image from internet quietly ?
i believe they have their reason(s)
n so do i.
One just need only 2 :
i'll be more than happy 2 oblige.....
as per example
tat's sweet of her ~:thumbsup:
ah..if only everyone is like her, and if every photographer is like you lor. but unfortunate thats not the case most of the time
- Status
