pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: watermark  (Read 3510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 28, 2010, 09:38 »
0
I know it's been an issue for years but I'm really disappointed with Fotolia's watermark. They are losing sales and I think they don't realize that some photographers won't submit particular images because they are not protected.

I submitted this photo  http://us.fotolia.com/id/23774166 and I'm seriously thinking about taking it out. There are zero watermark on this one.

Michael


« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2010, 10:11 »
0
You're right. I have a lot of isolations in my portfolio which are not protected at all at Fotolia due to their watermark.
They do sell but I'm sure that many times they're just being photoshopped.

It's been brought up many times and I don't know what it takes for Fotolia to change it.  :-X

« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2010, 13:29 »
0
It's been brought up many times and I don't know what it takes for Fotolia to change it.  :-X
They never listen, do they?

« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2010, 14:24 »
0
It's been brought up many times and I don't know what it takes for Fotolia to change it.  :-X
They never listen, do they?

I don't know why they wouldn't, it would be in their own best interest.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2010, 16:35 »
0
Wow, I never realized that.  Just found one of my recent uploads that managed to evade the watermarks too. 

Hopefully with the survey going this is something that can be improved if enough people comment.  I already finished the survey (thanks for the link Hugo!) but maybe those who haven't could bring it up. 

« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2010, 17:08 »
0
It's been brought up many times and I don't know what it takes for Fotolia to change it.  :-X

They never listen, do they?

I don't know why they wouldn't, it would be in their own best interest.


They should, but they don't.  It's been what - 3 years? - after they changed the watermaked, they acknowledge it wasnt 'good, but they never improved it. 

Why?  Good question.  It's a very simple thing to do, so it's not that the effort does not justify the potential loss.  They already have something that is a differential to other sites: they pick a white or black WM according to the image's tone.  Putting a real watermark isn't really a complicate process, and they had one before that change.

It isn't however an issue in FT only.  There is a thread in DT about this.  Look how weak the IS watermark looks in my image, which is nevertheless my best-seller there:


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5430 Views
Last post September 14, 2007, 14:43
by StockManiac
5 Replies
3259 Views
Last post September 17, 2007, 14:14
by hatman12
27 Replies
8701 Views
Last post January 25, 2008, 05:12
by sharpshot
5 Replies
4013 Views
Last post March 27, 2008, 16:07
by Alatriste
2 Replies
5092 Views
Last post September 26, 2009, 16:25
by designalldone

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results