You may have discussed this topic elsewhere. istock has no watermarks on small search previews. Did they do this to get around google image search restrictions? Does anyone know when they started generally showing previews with no watermarks?

Watermark on photos looks as it has for a long time now.
I think there was a discussion on watermarks on vectors over on their forum.

Yes, so there is still a watermark when you click on the image to see the larger preview and file details but when searching, the small thumbnails have no watermark whatsoever. My wife has been taking them direct from the search for her blog. istock must have done this for some reason because it is easy enough to put the watermark on the small preview images. Many of my images look fine at the small preview size, average 235 X 235 pixels.

Just think of all the 75 cents we're missing out on.

Yes, so there is still a watermark when you click on the image to see the larger preview and file details but when searching, the small thumbnails have no watermark whatsoever. My wife has been taking them direct from the search for her blog. istock must have done this for some reason because it is easy enough to put the watermark on the small preview images. Many of my images look fine at the small preview size, average 235 X 235 pixels.

Just think of all the 75 cents we're missing out on.

Does your wife, with your approval and boasting, also steal plants from gardens which don't have 3m high walls topped with razor wire?

My experience in working with small business people is that they don't understand property rights regarding images. They also don't understand image resolution. These small preview images would be perfect for internet use, powerpoint presentations and blogs. They'd also be useful for packaging as a mega free giveaway zip file. So istock has narrowed their customer base down to business people who know about the legalities of image use and graphic artists who understand resolution.

I never see blogs with images that tiny, but I'm sure you can point me to many (don't bother!)
But your wife doesn't have the excuse of ignorance - unless you have chosen not to enlighten her; she's an out and out thief.
Out in the real world, who pays for stuff, except those who are not thieves?

I'm glad in her case that 'as thick as thieves' has another meaning. Most of the ignorant, and deliberate thieves, use / steal full size images.

Quote from: goober on June 02, 2016, 19:04

Yes, so there is still a watermark when you click on the image to see the larger preview and file details but when searching, the small thumbnails have no watermark whatsoever. My wife has been taking them direct from the search for her blog. istock must have done this for some reason because it is easy enough to put the watermark on the small preview images. Many of my images look fine at the small preview size, average 235 X 235 pixels.

Just think of all the 75 cents we're missing out on.

Does your wife, with your approval and boasting, also steal plants from gardens which don't have 3m high walls topped with razor wire?

Quote from: goober on June 02, 2016, 19:25

My experience in working with small business people is that they don't understand property rights regarding images. They also don't understand image resolution. These small preview images would be perfect for internet use, powerpoint presentations and blogs. They'd also be useful for packaging as a mega free giveaway zip file. So istock has narrowed their customer base down to business people who know about the legalities of image use and graphic artists who understand resolution.

I never see blogs with images that tiny, but I'm sure you can point me to many (don't bother!)
But your wife doesn't have the excuse of ignorance - unless you have chosen not to enlighten her; she's an out and out thief.
Out in the real world, who pays for stuff, except those who are not thieves?

I'm glad in her case that 'as thick as thieves' has another meaning. Most of the ignorant, and deliberate thieves, use / steal full size images.

Obviously my wife is not stealing them. I said "taking", and this is how I became aware of the watermark issue. She is within her rights to use them and was doing it that way because she doesn't have to bother me to fetch and resize them for her. In her blog the small images work fine.

I was reading in a Shoppify forum a few months ago that Google image search now treats images with watermarks in a negative way and I wondered if this is why istock's small previews have no watermarks.

Goober,  are you saying 'taking' because you are telling her it is okay to steal?  Or what do you mean?
Stealing is stealing.  It is not a matter of linguistics.

Though this is what is happening in the real world and this is why we earn less each day by day, month by month. There are websites that sell stolen images. Yes I have seen it too, small images are ok for blogs.

Istock should protect our images much better. It is really up to them. Thieves will steal if they have the opportunity anyway.

Where I'm from 'taking' can be used interchangeably with 'getting' or 'using' depending on the context. Maybe it's not the same worldwide.

I believe Goober's wife is only taking his images, not images belonging to others. At least that's how I read it.