| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:39:08 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,667 |
Often when you search for images, you can find nice images that are
ruined by watermarks.
But it's kind of odd that in many cases you can just search for the
image to find versions without watermarks.
So somehow the logic doesn't seem to add up. If a stock agency sells an image, someone who paid for it is entitled to use it on their site, but
that means they are sharing a version of the image effectively, which
renders any attempt to protect the image with watermarks kind of silly.
For instance, take this image:
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/2357607983/ display_1500/stock-photo-close-up-of-tiny-water-droplets-on-a-spider- web-set-against-a-black-background-2357607983.jpg
It looks like it's 'protected'. But with a little searching it's easy to
find 'unprotected' versions.
Like here:
https://www.newscientist.nl/app/uploads/Multiversum-1.jpg
Op 26/12/2024 om 17:55 schreef David:
On 23/12/2024 16:57, sobriquet wrote:
Often when you search for images, you can find nice images that are
ruined by watermarks.
But it's kind of odd that in many cases you can just search for the
image to find versions without watermarks.
So somehow the logic doesn't seem to add up. If a stock agency sells
an image, someone who paid for it is entitled to use it on their
site, but
that means they are sharing a version of the image effectively, which
renders any attempt to protect the image with watermarks kind of silly.
For instance, take this image:
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/2357607983/
display_1500/stock-photo-close-up-of-tiny-water-droplets-on-a-spider-
web-set-against-a-black-background-2357607983.jpg
It looks like it's 'protected'. But with a little searching it's easy
to find 'unprotected' versions.
Like here:
https://www.newscientist.nl/app/uploads/Multiversum-1.jpg
Fascinating subject matter! Thank you. 🙂
Here a stock photograph I found via Tin Eye:-
https://www.alamy.com/stained-glass-window-designed-by-george-cooper-
abbs-and-made-by-wippell-co-east-window-st-peters-church-budleigh-
salterton-image447995471.html
Here's a photograph I took of the very same window yesterday morning:-
https://i.ibb.co/WDgxz8s/F00403-FF-D720-4565-9509-726-D173066-
F1-1-105- c.jpg
https://devonchurchland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Stained-Glass- East-Window-Christ-The-King-George-Cooper-Abbs-Wippells-Of-Exeter-20th- Century-Budleigh-Salterton.jpeg
On 23/12/2024 16:57, sobriquet wrote:
Often when you search for images, you can find nice images that are
ruined by watermarks.
But it's kind of odd that in many cases you can just search for the
image to find versions without watermarks.
So somehow the logic doesn't seem to add up. If a stock agency sells
an image, someone who paid for it is entitled to use it on their site,
but
that means they are sharing a version of the image effectively, which
renders any attempt to protect the image with watermarks kind of silly.
For instance, take this image:
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/2357607983/
display_1500/stock-photo-close-up-of-tiny-water-droplets-on-a-spider-
web-set-against-a-black-background-2357607983.jpg
It looks like it's 'protected'. But with a little searching it's easy
to find 'unprotected' versions.
Like here:
https://www.newscientist.nl/app/uploads/Multiversum-1.jpg
Fascinating subject matter! Thank you. 🙂
Here a stock photograph I found via Tin Eye:-
https://www.alamy.com/stained-glass-window-designed-by-george-cooper- abbs-and-made-by-wippell-co-east-window-st-peters-church-budleigh- salterton-image447995471.html
Here's a photograph I took of the very same window yesterday morning:-
https://i.ibb.co/WDgxz8s/F00403-FF-D720-4565-9509-726-D173066-F1-1-105-
c.jpg
