Jump to content

Removing Watermarks from Image Search Results


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Laurin Rinder said:

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.

So what you are saying basically is that photo/video files are becoming so accessible and free that the microstock business is destined to fail and, by removing watermarks and not protecting images that are sold, they are contributing to their demise...and ours...correct?! 

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

7 hours ago, Laurin Rinder said:

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.

Movies  and music are usually "consumed" in private. But most images and videos are used in public relation. They will almost always be in public when used. So I think protecting them should be easier. Please correct me if I overlook something.

Hope agencies will have some kind of cooperation to protect this common interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Warwick said:

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.

If you made the images uncopy-able from the buyer - they would stop buying them. That's what they buy. The image - the rights to use the image. Not that I am in anyway trying to promote the theft of my work - heck no! But - when I search for images online - especially google- I'll stay away from those with watermarks from SS or othersites - as will other people. There are many people, many, who do not know what SS, or even microstock is for that matter. I'm not sure if this IS the reason - but the idea I think is that it may attract more customers. You just click whatever image for the full size, not knowing where you are being lead to... I've still been making sales - maybe even moreso now than before. And that's right - if someone buys your image, then uses it on their website - they are not required to watermark it either. I'd like to see Who buys the image, so that we know - hey this person stole it, versus this person bought it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey, I was not suggesting that buyers be sold images with watermarks. What I was trying to say is that the images they have bought and use can be right clicked and copied very easily. I have some images being used on front pages of websites that are far better than thumbnails and one can simply right click and copy the image and use it freely. There is software that makes this very difficult to do. A screen shot is still an option for someone wanting to steal the image but at least making it difficult to do a simple copy would deter some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 4:53 PM, Crispy Fish Images said:

Movies  and music are usually "consumed" in private. But most images and videos are used in public relation. They will almost always be in public when used. So I think protecting them should be easier. Please correct me if I overlook something.

Hope agencies will have some kind of cooperation to protect this common interest.

BS, I can watch any new Movie still in the theatres in my Home for free. and I can have any CD of Music for free. Our Photos? Please.. childs Play.Sent you PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been checking. And (with the exception of FT which is consistently very good) my sales are now very much stronger on the sites which still have watermarked thumbnails.

Looks like the sites without the watermarks are either become less interesting to buyers for some reason - or are just giving my work away to casual browsers and Google searchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the effort being made to improve the customer experience, however for web design in particular, where thumbnail pics are often used in sliders, galleries and news pages, many potential buyers could be tempted to just screen grab the preview images and use those, without ever registering or paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 12:51 PM, Mark Godden said:

Unfortunately, the removal of watermarks from thumbnails just seems to have made it a whole lot easier as far as I can see. 

Yes, the easier factor... I mean i used to buy a whole bunch of vaguely on topic pretty background type 'stuff' mainly to make powerpoint presentations backgrounds slightly less interminably boring, typically they would be knocked back to 30% transparency or more... you cant really tell the resolution of a non detailed image once its faded that far then shown on a portable projector, Its just making it a little bit to tempting for people not to bother paying if you ask me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 1:32 AM, Michael Warwick said:

Lindsey, I was not suggesting that buyers be sold images with watermarks. What I was trying to say is that the images they have bought and use can be right clicked and copied very easily. I have some images being used on front pages of websites that are far better than thumbnails and one can simply right click and copy the image and use it freely. There is software that makes this very difficult to do. A screen shot is still an option for someone wanting to steal the image but at least making it difficult to do a simple copy would deter some.

Yeah. It's all a mess. I just have fun with it. & I like doing the research. Did you know there are 4 types of rainbows? I'd always just thought of the one, but there are more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Wooooooowww, congratz SS on making such a dumb move.
Within this period my sales  already dropped by 30% since my stuff is mostly used for web thumbnails.
Scrolling through the search results and take a screenshot is not a big deal for any designer, ahhhhh how stupid can you be.

Guys instead of complaining here, where no one else seems to care, how about every one of us who feels bad about it writes a ticket to the support.
Either reverse all of that or at least demand an option to opt out.

We,as their source of income should make a stand, dont you think ?

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...