Jump to content

Removing Watermarks from Image Search Results


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Mark Godden said:

Here are three randomly selected images from my SS port, screen-shot and up-scaled by 300% using Photoshop. Not great but certainly usable for some things I would have thought? Took me about two minutes.  

test.jpg

test2.jpg

test3.jpg

Great Example Mark. Proves the point.. very....very useable. More useable than whats getting approved lately.Love the rope. send it to me. Let me do a B&W for ya. Largest JPG. Rinderart@aol.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Everyone, As of this morning, we are beginning to deploy a change that will be removing watermarks from thumbnails on the search results page. This change is meant to provide a better

What a dull move! I agree that 260px is enough to be used and watermark doesn't bother anyone. You would better care more about protecting images instead of making them easier to steal.

That's very odd idea in my opinion. It is not client oriented thing that will drive more sales, it just works against contributors

Posted Images

Possibly. Of course I'm the one always arguing that people can use all types of things for who knows whatever... LOL  I just did these screenshots from your screenshots after zooming in as far as only the browser would let me - just because I was curious. I like this top one. It looks pretty beastly. & Look at how destructive, compared to what I'm sure the original is! Especially that top one.  So - let's say they used it as a background, filtered a blur - add some text. Ok sure - but try to put it anywhere say into another stock photo or prof portfolio - no good at all.  I know next thing @Laurin Rinder is gonna dig up some old photo of mine that actually looks like this LOL. But if that's the case I have no idea...   

5ade45d15d041_ScreenShot2018-04-23at4_43_21PM.thumb.png.c3a3ac9c38976cd2d7a997648be83567.png5ade45cc8d680_ScreenShot2018-04-23at4_43_30PM.thumb.png.d492d7845797f642533da3a51c0c5443.png5ade45c025922_ScreenShot2018-04-23at4_43_46PM.thumb.png.6287e2496863989b5e50b82bc0827863.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Also Why do people post things in Elsewhere - and also sell things here? Sure it'll get your name out I guess but I think it's totally counter productive...

I guess - we have to make our form of "concerts."  Musicians don't make it off of cd's anymore - they do their shows. Okay, I'm not a musician so I'm not entirely sure - but I know that cd's are dead. They are good for 3D sculptures and tracing circles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And plus - Regardless of the watermark whether it's from you or from SS - regardless if you have a ©namedate/website whatever - What you make is yours. You own the rights. Unless you made it from something in the PD. You would own the rights to the Manipulations you did, but the original would still remain PD. If somebody took your stuff, and post it - Especially for commercial uses - you can go after them for it. That's why you always always always embed your information into the photo. Yeah - someone like you or me can go and strip it, sure... but getting the exif camera info is all the more difficult. Even without your name you could just prove you own that camera and they didn't.   I tried to strip my camera info actually, but I couldn't figure it out...

That also leaves another question. SS keeps titles, tags, and descriptions - but what happens to all of your other info? Have to say I don't exactly shop here myself so idk. 

I have a handful of rather odd images from many years ago. I saw something recently and was like Hey! That is MY PHOTO! - A pretty unique one at that so I was pretty peeved. So of course I found it in the depths of my laptop even more convinced. I was about to raise hell on the news site it was on - until I saw the metadata in the photo...wasn't mine. I had just saved it because it was the image I used to find out what was going on- why I had all the other photos. So years and years later - I just remembered the photo, and that I had it...  But they were smart for the metadata. Chances are if you know enough to do that - you probably have at least a little respect for the arts and intellectual property and won't rip somebody off. Hopefully. Even when I post things that are CC0 I try to credit the photographer.  But it would help if we would stop posting how there's this and that technology that allows people to strip things. Let the ignorant stay ignorant about things like that.  By being out in the open were just fueling the madness. I say this after typing out the paragraph. :/ ...

Definitely check out some of the copyright laws if you haven't already. If you make this weird thing and somebody else makes a weird thing from your weird thing - even if it is all distorted and whatnot - that drives me mad! That doesn't make it okay. We should be able to embed random data into each individual pixel - solve that problem quick! But like say - my little bokeh lights ... have no idea who invented the concept but at this point there's no way to call anybody that makes them a thief. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

The point is not whether someone can steal your image and use it in their port. The point is that a screen capture is plenty big enough for MANY web based uses. News images, blog posts, advertisements etc. Why buy it when you can screen cap it and have all you need?

 

Do you think that most of your sales go to full page glossy magazine ads or billboards?

Exactly Chris, I was just trying to demonstrate how easy it is to exploit one of my own thumbnails, now made even easier because there are no watermarks for a potential thief to overcome. Every contributor is now vulnerable to this. It would have been nice to have been given an opt in / opt out choice over the removal of watermarks because its our intellectual property that's being put at increased risk of thievery.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to improve contributor experience, I think you should make it so that we don't have to re-upload images when they are rejected for things like a mistake in the metadata or unacceptable caption. Why can't you program the submissions so that there is an option to resubmit the same image in cases where it is a simple mistake? Just an idea to help us with our time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sara Armas said:

If you want to improve contributor experience, I think you should make it so that we don't have to re-upload images when they are rejected for things like a mistake in the metadata or unacceptable caption. Why can't you program the submissions so that there is an option to resubmit the same image in cases where it is a simple mistake? Just an idea to help us with our time.

agree +100 have mentioned this before especially when I've hit the button and realised my mistake...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crispy Fish Images said:

Now buying images (or even using a hacking web site to download unwatermarked ones) is less convenient than just screen capture them and use. But to be fair, other agencies like iStock and Adobe Stock have been doing this long before Shutterstock.

darn, I wanted to see some crispy fish photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who works as a designer and shoots too - and has only just joined to start contributing photography I think this is not a smart move. I buy a lot of images from Shutterstock and some from iStock and a watermarked thumbnail has never been a problem. I just don't understand the logic. A watermark is probably the best method of making sure someone doesn't download an image for free use and it is not a distraction to buying (in my experience).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, workandnonwork said:

As someone who works as a designer and shoots too - and has only just joined to start contributing photography I think this is not a smart move. I buy a lot of images from Shutterstock and some from iStock and a watermarked thumbnail has never been a problem. I just don't understand the logic. A watermark is probably the best method of making sure someone doesn't download an image for free use and it is not a distraction to buying (in my experience).

agree. after a lot of years and talking to buyers and designers a lot longer than SS has been around.And Lets be Honest anyone with a few brain cells can remove any watermark if they really want to. don'y believe it? Your in denial. theres sweat rooms in china with Kids trained to do it for 50 cents  an hour to make T shirts for tourists on Cruise ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watermarks? What are you afraid for? Are you serious? People are buying our pictures not to hide them in a drawer! Once published (without any watermarks off course) and it could be easily "googled" and stolen. Removing watermarks at SS it's not a big problem. SS is a last place where a thief will go for a pictures. The Door locks are against the honest people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so we all think that removing watermarks is a bad idea. However, I see my images purchased from a customer online far larger than a thumbnail and no indication of copyright and often not even acknowledgement of shutterstock or my name with every capability of right clicking and copying the image. Thankfully the images keep selling because it far easier to steal from a buyer who is using the images online. I have no idea how to prevent this except if SS makes the image un-copy-able when sold to a customer for limited use or use restricted...which you would think would be included and understand by the buyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael...think about this a minute. who Makes the Money with Images,Video,Movies and Music?

 

Answer. Wireless carriers, estimated 90 Billion a year for Peer to peer File Sharing. Protecting anything is a complete and utter waste of time and resources. Discussion is over My friend. Has been for at least 5 Years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jeff De locked, unfeatured and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...