🖼️ Graphics Forum Image Watermarks

[veloman]

One of the extensions I've had installed on my site, but disabled, is automatic image watermarking. I know it used to be a "thing" back in the 2000s for forums to watermark every image with their URL - but these days I feel it might actually be counterproductive.

If we're worried about hotlinking it's easy enough to disable it server-side. I suppose it'd be good to "spread" the forum when images are shared elsewhere, but perhaps to the detriment of annoying users! What do you all think?

 

[Cedric]

I have never been a fan of watermarks unless it's work that was designed and not being delivered upon payment yet. I don't think it would be counterproductive either. People would hardly pay attention to it imo. Hotlinking is a different subject though. I know it can reduce bandwidth and stuff, but haven't seen the need to disable it myself.

 

[vbgamer45]

Not a fan of either. Unless you are selling commercial images/videos

 

[Ravenfreak]

I'm not a fan of watermarks on forum images. I think watermarks are fine for images that you're commissioned to do for a specific person though or company.

 

[Tracy]

I had watermarks enabled on my astrophotography site (via an add-on that allowed users to selectively use it)... had several bitch about it as they clearly stated if they wanted their images watermarked (since the are astrophotography related and manually edited) they could do it themselves.... so I disabled that ability.



I think (never asked) that the issue was actually that the secondary watermark took away from the image.

 

[Empire]

I used to have watermarks IPS has that option built into the system to have it on or off. However, I never liked it. members can't download or used it once the watermarks are on. Looks pooped.

 

[veloman]

I used to have watermarks IPS has that option built into the system to have it on or off. However, I never liked it. members can't download or used it once the watermarks are on. Looks pooped.

Yeah, the more I've seen it the more I think it looks very old fashioned. I've had it disabled since about 5 minutes after adding it!

 

[Empire]

I've had it disabled since about 5 minutes after adding it!

should be 5 secs after

 

[Lewis.]

Nowadays they're not worth the time putting on, in my opinion. Anyone who wanted to remove them could do it quickly with ai nowadays. It used to be a bit more of a pain with a clone stamp but still possible.

 

[SDL]

I think they’re just irritating in all honesty, unless it’s privately commissioned or you’re selling it etc. That’s the only time I can find a good reason for having watermarks.

 

[Tracy]

I think they’re just irritating in all honesty, unless it’s privately commissioned or you’re selling it etc. That’s the only time I can find a good reason for having watermarks.

Until you get into a niche like mine... several folks create some great images... and then all of a sudden, you find them being distributed through other sites, or in the case of mobile, an app for "custom backgrounds".

 

[SDL]

Until you get into a niche like mine... several folks create some great images... and then all of a sudden, you find them being distributed through other sites, or in the case of mobile, an app for "custom backgrounds".

I’ll admit I didn’t consider that aspect of it, my bad.

 

[Tracy]

’ll admit I didn’t consider that aspect of it, my bad.

No "bad" to it.... it's just different use cases. Forums/sites that deal with a lot of landscape type (which includes cosmos basically) photography have that issue with the images/content being "borrowed" for use elsewhere.

 

[veloman]

Sorry to revive tries topic, but I though I should now that apparently Google (and possibly other search engines) don't like watermarked images and will push them down the page rankings. So if they're not really needed then it's probably wise to avoid them, just from that perspective.

 

[Tracy]

apparently Google (and possibly other search engines) don't like watermarked images and will push them down the page rankings

Probably prefer to show unmarked ones and simply "warn" you that you might not be able to use them for what you want "wink....wink".... instead of them being where they aren't easily usable for backgrounds and such.

 

[Tracy]

However, I never liked it. members can't download or used it once the watermarks are on. Looks pooped.

Pretty sure that's the entire intent of watermarking images... so you can't download or use them for personal/commercial use without going through a lot of work.....or getting permission from the original owner and then them giving making a non-watermarked version available to you.
Some images in my field involve 200-300 hours of time just capturing the data... then another 10 or so "tweaking" it so it looks good.

 

[Empire]

Pretty sure that's the entire intent of watermarking images...

Truw but had many wanted to download there own images and with watermark on them they left

 

[Tracy]

Truw but had many wanted to download there own images and with watermark on them they left

That's when you tell them you aren't a lifetime storage repository, and keeping their own images safe is to their benefit.
I guess IPS doesn't have this ability to grant to users?

 

[TwitchisMental]

I think watermarks are fine for images that you're commissioned to do for a specific person though or company.

^This. Unless you are making money from the images in some shape or form, watermarking seems silly.

 

[Tracy]

Unless you are making money from the images in some shape or form, watermarking seems silly.

Really? You invest 100-300 hours into one and you think it might be "sillly" to not want others ripping that image off to use for their benefit?