pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: watermark  (Read 3208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 30, 2016, 22:22 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2016, 22:35 by goober »


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2016, 09:16 »
0
I just logged in and thought great, no watermark. What has happened to the Istock watermark? It is considerably lighter, almost non-existant? Awfully quiet here, is there a discussion about it elsewhere?
I'm going to stop uploading to Istock for a while, the light watermark means giving out images for free.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2016, 11:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2016, 11:34 »
+1
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.

Saw the discussion. Sure, if the background is white, the image protection is about zero.

I'm confused. I noticed the watermark looks different on different browsers. On Firefox, it is extremely light. On Windows Edge, it looks as it used to.

« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2016, 19:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2016, 19:25 »
+1
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2016, 01:59 »
+4
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.

« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2016, 10:03 »
0
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.

The real question is if she could would she? If I'm taking pennies and I come across stacks of dollars, I will forget the pennies and take the dollars. ;D

« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2016, 21:45 »
0
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.

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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 23:19 by goober »

« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2016, 15:15 »
+1


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.




« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2016, 23:13 »
0


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.

« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2016, 06:20 »
+2




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.

OK, Thanks for the definition.
So if you go to a supermarket you can take some food or candy without paying for it if nobody sees it. Or better yet lift something more valuable if you don't get caught.

Stealing.

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2016, 06:45 »
0
I believe Goober's wife is only taking his images, not images belonging to others. At least that's how I read it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5473 Views
Last post September 14, 2007, 14:43
by StockManiac
5 Replies
3327 Views
Last post September 17, 2007, 14:14
by hatman12
2 Replies
5197 Views
Last post September 26, 2009, 16:25
by designalldone
5 Replies
3601 Views
Last post June 28, 2010, 17:08
by madelaide
3 Replies
1291 Views
Last post February 13, 2019, 10:10
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results