Watermarks and Logos Are a No-No
Thursday, 12. July 2007, 13:49:50
Okay, now it's rant time.
No offense to anyone is meant through this post, I just wanted to express how I felt. After all, that's what blogs are for, right?
E3 has come and gone, and the screenshots and gameplay videos have started to pour in. Several of my favorite gaming blogs have jumped on the IGN bandwagon, mindlessly slapping their logos and watermarks on any official art or image that comes in. Now a watermark, correct me if I'm wrong, is a "transparent graphic or font that fills all or part of the frame that is used to show copyright or ownership of something."
Ownership or copyright. Do any unofficial blogs have a copyright on these images released to the press by Nintendo, created by Nintendo? The answer is quite simple: no.
You can't (well I suppose you technically can) just slap your logo or watermark on an image that you don't own the rights to. If the above definition of a watermark is correct, isn't claiming other's work as your own illegal?
And it's not just gaming blogs. Several film sites have begun this horrible practice. I was browsing for trailers for 'Order of the Phoenix' (which released yesterday, BTW. Go and see it), only to find that the trailers/interviews/promotional material had watermarks on them!
Now I have, on a few occasions, questioned a site about this practice. I usually get something like "Here at [site name], we work hard to maintain our contacts with the developers/creators and want to ensure that blah blah blah". Anyone with a brain in their skull knows that is a load of crap. It's sooooo easy to get the official unbranded versions somewhere on the web. Why are they truly adding watermarks/logos? Anyone know the answer?
It's shameless self-promotion. They know that people will share the images with their friends and they will get more people to join their site. Even better, some sites know that more users equals more ad clicks equals more money! Ah yes, money makes the world go 'round.
The truth is, people are less likely to view/share images with unofficial watermarks. They'll just go and find the original images, still with a bad taste in their mouth from the experience with the gaming blog. Why do some sites consider it an acceptable practice to drive their existing members away in an effort to create new ones?
I'm fine with making images and videos available to members only, but please don't be stupid. No, you haven't worked hard to obtain that image, no you didn't create it, no you don't own it.
Perhaps I shouldn't be complaining. After all, I did say earlier that it was easy to find the original images.
--Joel
No offense to anyone is meant through this post, I just wanted to express how I felt. After all, that's what blogs are for, right?
E3 has come and gone, and the screenshots and gameplay videos have started to pour in. Several of my favorite gaming blogs have jumped on the IGN bandwagon, mindlessly slapping their logos and watermarks on any official art or image that comes in. Now a watermark, correct me if I'm wrong, is a "transparent graphic or font that fills all or part of the frame that is used to show copyright or ownership of something."
Ownership or copyright. Do any unofficial blogs have a copyright on these images released to the press by Nintendo, created by Nintendo? The answer is quite simple: no.
You can't (well I suppose you technically can) just slap your logo or watermark on an image that you don't own the rights to. If the above definition of a watermark is correct, isn't claiming other's work as your own illegal?
And it's not just gaming blogs. Several film sites have begun this horrible practice. I was browsing for trailers for 'Order of the Phoenix' (which released yesterday, BTW. Go and see it), only to find that the trailers/interviews/promotional material had watermarks on them!
Now I have, on a few occasions, questioned a site about this practice. I usually get something like "Here at [site name], we work hard to maintain our contacts with the developers/creators and want to ensure that blah blah blah". Anyone with a brain in their skull knows that is a load of crap. It's sooooo easy to get the official unbranded versions somewhere on the web. Why are they truly adding watermarks/logos? Anyone know the answer?
It's shameless self-promotion. They know that people will share the images with their friends and they will get more people to join their site. Even better, some sites know that more users equals more ad clicks equals more money! Ah yes, money makes the world go 'round.
The truth is, people are less likely to view/share images with unofficial watermarks. They'll just go and find the original images, still with a bad taste in their mouth from the experience with the gaming blog. Why do some sites consider it an acceptable practice to drive their existing members away in an effort to create new ones?
I'm fine with making images and videos available to members only, but please don't be stupid. No, you haven't worked hard to obtain that image, no you didn't create it, no you don't own it.
Perhaps I shouldn't be complaining. After all, I did say earlier that it was easy to find the original images.
--Joel
(50%)
WIDGETIZE
CaptainSeagull # 20. July 2007, 18:13
lutherjw # 23. July 2007, 20:45
I was just in a bad mood when I wrote this post. Couldn't you tell?
But yeah, the white space sounds great. Nice idea.