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.

[pavel_0024]

Then you'd be definitely surprised at how many unlicensed adobe stock pictures is running in the wild simply because the biggest photobank has the least substantial basic picture protection... go figure.

[Nancy OShea]

Then you'd be surprised at how many unlicensed adobe stock pictures is running in the wild...

By @pavel_0024

==========

Give us PROOF with examples of so-called "unlicensed" photos.

DISCLAIMER: Posting unsubstantiated claims about Adobe on Adobe's website is legal grounds for them to file a defamation lawsuit against you. 🙄

[pavel_0024]

Proving the obvious and getting sued by Adobe for trying to protect its property... what a community... Thank you Nancy for being helpful...

[daniellei4510]

We're not sure what you proved. You again have failed to provide evidence.

[pavel_0024]

I'm just telling you, that Adobe has the least substantial watermark of all the photobank. I don't have to prove it. That's a fact. You can measure it. My only question was why. You are the one who came here with theories, not me. If you do not know the answer, please say nothing.

[daniellei4510]

The proof that was asked for was to show examples of the many instances of theft you have seen due to the type of watermark Adobe uses. And you know, there could be an advantage of using barely visible watermarks: they would be easier to miss if someone attempted to remove them from an asset. Bottom line, this is a non-issue in any case.

[Nancy OShea]

Bottom line, this is a non-issue in any case.

By @daniellei4510

===========

100% agreed.

If the OP has proof of theft, submit it through proper channels along with your supporting evidence.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/dmca.html

[Discussion locked by moderator.]

[pavel_0024]

And your proof about is a few lines down, where the guy brags about sending watermarked mockups to his clients.

[daniellei4510]

Do tell how you have found such images. I've done reverse images searches on my assets that have actually been sold to get an idea how they are being used, and I have yet to find one.

[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.

[pavel_0024]

So is it easy to remove it or not? You're contradicting yourself... And you shouldn't explain why the watermark is here, because none should be there. You should buy every picture even if it is only for a test mockup. Especially if you work for those big companies you brag about. 

[RALPH_L]

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