Watermark gone from search thums

[Cryptoprocta]

Has there been any discussion on here about the fact that the watermark has now gone from search thums?

When you hover over them, you get a slightly bigger image, which would be perfectly usable on some blogs and websites.

I for one am not happy about this, there's enough bother with images lifted from legitimate buyers without effectively 'giving away' files like this. This way, there isn't even anything to give pause to even the unknowing abuser, which a watermark does.

[Niels Quist]

52 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Has there been any discussion on here about the fact that the watermark has now gone from search thums?

When you hover over them, you get a slightly bigger image, which would be perfectly usable on some blogs and websites.

I for one am not happy about this, there's enough bother with images lifted from legitimate buyers without effectively 'giving away' files like this. This way, there isn't even anything to give pause to even the unknowing abuser, which a watermark does.

 

Haven't seen any discussion.

 

Agree, there should be a watermark on the hovered images.

 

Niels

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Has there been any discussion on here about the fact that the watermark has now gone from search thums?

When you hover over them, you get a slightly bigger image, which would be perfectly usable on some blogs and websites.

I for one am not happy about this, there's enough bother with images lifted from legitimate buyers without effectively 'giving away' files like this. This way, there isn't even anything to give pause to even the unknowing abuser, which a watermark does.

 

A discrete watermark might be good... But at least simple right-clicking isn't easy/possible though.

 

Mark

[Starsphinx]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

A discrete watermark might be good... But at least simple right-clicking isn't easy/possible though.

 

Mark

Everyone seems to know how to screen capture these days - hover, print screen, image sorted.  A watermark on hover may, if not discourage, at least let all viewers know said image has not been paid for.

[Niels Quist]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

A discrete watermark might be good... But at least simple right-clicking isn't easy/possible though.

 

Mark

 

No, not in that particular view. But the larger image can be saved or copied in Firefox using the combination Shift and right click.

 

Niels

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Niels Quist

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Everyone seems to know how to screen capture these days - hover, print screen, image sorted.  A watermark on hover may, if not discourage, at least let all viewers know said image has not been paid for.

 

Would it also be good if the watermark also included the Alamy image ref so viewers would also know where they could get a legitimate copy from?

 

Mark

[Starsphinx]

12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Would it also be good if the watermark also included the Alamy image ref so viewers would also know where they could get a legitimate copy from?

 

Mark

Good idea - should also include "if you are reading this then the image you are viewing was acquired illegally" - I might play around with that on my own site watermark.  Although being as a significant chunk of users are teen lads it may have unintended consequences lol