Discussion: Watermarks & Other People's Content

[Leo Gets]

StanceWorks and Canibeat do not watermark without the express permission of the photographer (atleast, not recently).

Not only is it wrong, its illegal.

Posting them on your site does not make them yours.

Nothing illegal has been done. The photo credits have been given to the Photogrpaher on the very 1st line and a direct link to the origional work by Super Street is in the post.

Additionaly, adding the SoS watermark soley because the images have appeared on the SoS web page is not illegal. Illegal would be if there was a claimed that the pictures were taken by someone else for SoS sole use, of which none exists within the post.

The owner of the vehicle specificly asked that these pictures be used for this post as it is a FOR SALE post and he is looking to represent the car with the best pictures taken of it. Thus why photogrpaher credit and links to the origional pictures where included in the post.

just my .02, in the future, if you have concerns about content on a site, feel free to contact the site owner directly (there is a contact link right on the links bar) instead of runing around bad mouthing the site and site owner behind thier back.

[kartikeya]

Covering up a watermark is bad juju. Poor show, regardless of legality.

[J. Evins]

I guess nobody respects the hard work of creative professionals these day. Giving credit does not amount to free use of copyright content. I'll just stop by your house and steal something of yours and make sure I credit you, how about that?

You have absolutely no comprehension of copyright whatsoever if you think that is acceptable.

[Leo Gets]

I guess nobody respects the hard work of creative professionals these day. Giving credit does not amount to free use of copyright content. I'll just stop by your house and steal something of yours and make sure I credit you, how about that?

You have absolutely no comprehension of copyright whatsoever if you think that is acceptable.

So what you're saying is that I cannot put my watermark on something even though all due credits are being given.

I'm going to use this as a simple example:



GoTuning is a performance shop and well respected vendor, they watermark every picture on their site. Even though the pictures were not taken by them. Case in point. This APR front bumper, they sell this product and use an image right from the APR website, yet they put their watermark on it. So you're telling me that they are doing something despicable..?!??

Now on the other hand, I unlike said vendor am not making any profit out of having these pictures on my site and I am giving credit to its origins and its creator. (I don't think you'll find any links to APR on GoTuning's site...)

Yet you want to talk about respect, yet your idea of respect is going on another site, bad mouthing myself and what I do, without having the courage to contact me yourself. (I had to find out about this thread from other sources) and you claim things that are not true to make someone else look bad. I see clearly how respectful you are.

You claimed that we did not give photo credit to the photographer: WRONG
- Credit was the 1st thing written on the post before anything else.

You claim that we did not link the photographer’s site: WRONG
- The post mentions that the feature was shot for SuperStreet and links to the original feature with the original untouched pictures.

You claim that I removed the photographer’s watermark: WRONG
- If you click on the link in the post, you'll see that the photographer's watermark was never on the pictures to begin with.

So basically you come here, make us look bad with UNTRUE statements and start preaching respect. Maybe you should look in a mirror, because none of your actions are respectful.

POST is unedited since it was published and will remain that way so that all can see that.

[J. Evins]

I mentioned that the credit is given. Do you think that it is okay for you to use the photographs (for free) when Super Street had to pay hundreds of dollars for the release of copyright? You believe that is acceptable under law? LOL

I don't care who has done what online. I am only looking at this specific scenario.

Bottom line is you do not own the copyright and giving credit does not make using a copyrighted image and putting your logo on it acceptable.

[kartikeya]

What that GoPerformance place did isn't despicable, but it is curious... watermarking a publically available photo. Unless it was made only available to APR retailers, in which case marking it is a good idea, so that unauthorized retailers can't use it.

Regarding the initial topic- if you had a photo with no watermarks, then I don't see the harm. J. Evins said you took a photo from Super Street, and covered their watermark, which is what I think would have been damnable.

I think it's tiny little bit weird that you put your own watermark on it, since it's not your picture, but it's not unusual at all for blogs to watermark everything they post (eg: TheChive, Worth1000, Kontraband).

If the photo wasn't exclusive to SuperStreet, then I think the only crime SoS is guilty of is not having a prettier watermark.

[J. Evins]

GoTuning is a performance shop and well respected vendor, they watermark every picture on their site. Even though the pictures were not taken by them. Case in point. This APR front bumper, they sell this product and use an image right from the APR website, yet they put their watermark on it. So you're telling me that they are doing something despicable..?!??

Are you serious? GoTuning is a distributor for APR - of course they have permission! That isn't even remotely the same scenario. They make a profit by GoTuning reselling their products.

You claimed that we did not give photo credit to the photographer: WRONG
- Credit was the 1st thing written on the post before anything else.

I did no such thing. I said:

"1. They gave credit to Henry / Super Street"

You claim that we did not link the photographer’s site: WRONG
- The post mentions that the feature was shot for SuperStreet and links to the original feature with the original untouched pictures.

See above. I did no such thing.

You claim that I removed the photographer’s watermark: WRONG
- If you click on the link in the post, you'll see that the photographer's watermark was never on the pictures to begin with.

See below. I made no such claim.

"2. The Super Street watermarks were removed, and State of Stance watermarks added"

[kartikeya]

I decided to revisit this... from a purely objective point, I'd guess that the Super Street watermarks were in fact removed.

[J. Evins]

A professional photographer will have years and years of experience producing the quality of images that they do. The investment may be thousands and thousands of dollars in equipment. Their income is based off their work having a value to a company and/or business. You don't just become a professional overnight, it takes an unimaginable amount of effort, money, time, and knowledge.

When you, as a business, decide that you can use whatever images you want regardless of copyright and watermark them of their own, you devalue that image. Super Street paid hundreds of dollars to secure the exclusive rights to those images and you herp derp along and steal them and think the credit you give is going to make it worth the hard work, effort, and talent that photographer put into it. Why would businesses pay for professional, quality work when they can just steal it and get away with it? Why would Super Street continue to pay a solid value when their work is being used for free by other media?

I don't know what you do for a living, but if the service you provided, or the product you created all of a sudden was being offered for free (or next to nothing), how would you feel? What if that product was downright stolen from you? All your hard work, experience, education, and investment in what you do stolen from you?

You should really, really think about this before you attempt to argue the morality and legality of what you're doing. Trust me, you are absolutely wrong to take someone else's work and put your own watermark on it.

You can be angry that it was posted publicly but every single creative professional that reads this has a stake in it. This should be made public to raise awareness because your blog is not the only blog that has followed these practices. The more awareness there is the better it is for people that put hard work, effort, passion, and love into their work and expect to get respect and value in return.

[NegativeCamber]

so what, credit is given in the text of the article, but the photo will circulate around the internet with the watermark. guess who gets the traffic.