The watermark is quite pitiful

[pavel_0024]

Hello guys,

is it me, or is the watermak provided on the site pretty negligible. I mean, some images can be used perfectly fine even with the watermark or require only minor photoshop tweaks to remove it. I would argue for something more beefy please.

[daniellei4510]

Short of hiding the asset almost entirely behind heavy-handed watermarks, there is not much to be done, as any Photoshop extraordinaire would be able to remove them with little or no effort. Images that are stolen are almost always discovered eventually., at which time appropriate legal action can be taken, starting with a take-down notice, which is usually quite effective. 

[pavel_0024]

You mean those which are on-line are discovered... You may be surprised but there is a physical world out there...

[daniellei4510]

Huh? Why would I be surprised? I live in it.

[daniellei4510]

Case in point: I used to work for a company whose CEO was a micromanager who didn't have a creative bone in his body and could not envision how an ad would look if the sample I provided contained watermarks. So he made me remove them so he could see exactly what the ad would look like when sent to the publisher. The watermarks of the stock service we used were quite substantial compared to Adobe's, but I was always able to clean them up. And that was long before generative fill became available. At the time, I only had Content Aware Fill at my disposal, and while less than adequate, and time-consuming, I could clean things up quite well with it. At least enough to pass the CEO's limited imagination.

[Abambo]

At the time, I only had Content Aware Fill at my disposal, and while less than adequate, and time-consuming,

By @daniellei4510

I know how to remove the watermark with the stamp and dodge and burn... 🙂 All good manual work, the old way.

[daniellei4510]

Yep. I kind of went back and forth with whatever was needed as well.

[Jill_C]

Big, dark watermarks that obscure the image will be detrimental to legitimate Buyers who want to be able to see what they're getting. They often download previews to incorporate into a design to present to their client, and the presence of a very noticeable watermark would make it more difficult for the client to appreciate the design. The thumbnail / preview copy that you can download are small files, so not really suitable for commercial use. 

[pavel_0024]

There doesn't have to be anything big or dark about it. Rather more present, like the thin grid one Alamy used to have was I imagine pretty effective to deter any steal. The current one is way too spaced out and if you have a picture with white background it does pretty much nothing. And the previews aren't that small in the first place. So picture for free...

[Abambo]

There doesn't have to be anything big or dark about it. Rather more present, like the thin grid one Alamy used to have was I imagine pretty effective to deter any steal. The current one is way too spaced out and if you have a picture with white background it does pretty much nothing. And the previews aren't that small in the first place. So picture for free...

By @pavel_0024

The copyright proof maner to handle this: do not contribute. It's like preventing stealing in shops: keep the doors closed.

Don't be a fool: The little hobby designer doing a brochure for the local club won't make you lose money. The professional designer doing a campaign for a big or even small company cannot afford to use unlicensed assets. The ones that need to get educated are the multiple engineers and commercials doing their own (awfully designed) powerpoint presentations. And those use the pictures with the watermark still embedded. I was in enough such presentations, and I've modified enough such presentations. And I need to disapoint you: I was in most cases able to simply exchange the unlicensed assets with own and more appropriate assets. No money to make.

[Nancy OShea]

Nobody serious is using low-quality watermarked previews for professional projects.  At worst, they might use it on a social media post, to which I say, "who cares if they do?"

That's not something I'm losing sleep over, neither should you.

[pavel_0024]

In case of photographs perhaps. But b&w vector designs you can autovector from the current prewiews quite nicely. 

And I congratulate you to your firm sleep.

[Abambo]

In case of photographs perhaps. But b&w vector designs you can autovector from the current prewiews quite nicely. 

And I congratulate you to your firm sleep.

By @pavel_0024

Sure. You invest hours to clean up the vector asset just to safe 10 bucks. My company sells my hours for 200 bucks at least. They don't let me fiddle with assets like this just to save 10 bucks. The hobby designer has plenty of time, but they probably have a limited toolset at their disposal.

[Abambo]

Some customers are debating for no watermark. When you present your potential mockups to customers, you alwasy need to add lengthy explanations for why this watermark is present. And yes, it is easy to get rid of the watermark. But at the end you always have two types of clients: clients ignoring the watermark and clients licensing the asset.

[RALPH_L]

Thgere are websites that remove the Adobe and Shutterstock watermarks on the fly. 

[Abambo]

Thgere are websites that remove the Adobe and Shutterstock watermarks on the fly. 

By @RALPH_L

It's illegal but yes, that's it. There are websites for all kinds of stuff...