Here's the thing, personally I don't think watermarks need to be HUGE and placed across the center of the image. My watermark is nice and small, but it's made so that it blends into the image no matter what colors I use for the card. Plus it's difficult to remove easily, even with Photoshop CS!
If you look at the DD gallery (Dirty Dozen gallery) most of those gals have rather small unobtrusive watermarks. To me that's saying something! If the be all and end all artists of SCS aren't marring their cards with these gigantic watermarks, why should you?
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a watermark, especially since SU requires it for web publication, but I'd really rather see the artwork than the watermark!
Here are a couple of samples:
Which one do you like the best? The tiny one? The HUGE one across the card? Or the one with the initials?
16 comments:
I've never posted to anyone's blog before, but I couldn't avoid it this time.
I'm SO GLAD you finally said something about the obnoxious watermarks everyone is slapping all over their cards these days. I can understand if the card might be/is published in a magazine, but those are only a few stampers out there out of a million. I LAUGH at the ones who just do it because everyone else seems to be doing it too. If someone feels the need to protect their designs, fine, but I really wish they would keep it to a minimum. It all seems VERY childish to me. The lack of sharing just to share seems to be gone these days, now everyone wants credit for the littlest things.
I know I might get flamed for feeling this way, but it just seems like it's gotten out of hand.
I have to admit I like the small, unobtrusive one!
hello! personally I like 2 and 3 - and as far as "anonymous" is concerned i think the purpose is not too "slap it on there b/c everybody else is doing it or to be obnoxious" but to protect something you created from someone else stealing and using it as if they created it. i guess it's just all up to the poster. Whatever you choose will look great no matter what. Thanks for sharing your opinion and for letting us give ours on your watermark. :) hugz
I like the one with the initials because it looks cool. :-) There's nothing wrong with having a watermark that has a little flare to it.
I personally like the small ones - the larger ones distract from the card.
GREAT CARD by the way!!!
I've been talking to my wife about this issue... I'm in the process of redoing her website, gallery, blog, etc. and I'm arguing against any sort of watermark. (BTW, Stampin' Up! requires a copyright notice, not a watermark per se.)
This may sound like a dumb question, but... why does it matter whether someone steals your images?
Travis, Ask your wife that question after she has spent 2 hours getting her card "just right". She then posts her glorious creation that she is SO proud of, to a website, only to find in a week someone is using HER exact card (it has your couch in the background) to sell SU products or to bolster their business on eBay. How does your wife feel now? It is stealing, it is wrong, PERIOD!
Laura, as a web designer I'm familiar with the whole concept of "spending hours" on a project, only to have others ape it and claim it for their own.
Maybe that's the difference here. Stampers who are fairly new to the internet scene (at least as far as posting their work online) just aren't familiar with it yet.
I totally agree that it's wrong for someone to claim another's work as their own. But just because some bad people do bad things doesn't mean the proper response is to accuse everyone of being a thief.
As a stamper who will have been published 3 times by the end of June, I can tell you a watermark with my information is very important to me. Stampers are artists and it is wrong to steal images.
Watermarks are VERY important. Maybe not the huge ones we have been seeing, but important none-the-less. I think a small, clear mark on the card is perfect.
I agree 100% with Laura on this one.
Great card BTW!
Okay, but then... how is one person claiming credit for someone else's photograph of a card really any different than another person claiming credit for a CASE of a photographed card? They're both presenting another's work as their own.
It seems the only difference is that one is actually possible to discourage. I find it ironic, though, that CASEing is encouraged among stampers.
Hey, Laura! I agree with you. Someone stole an image of mine once, right off my blog (with my dining room table and everything) and it ate me up inside. I had Travis handle e-mailing the lady (because she was hot-linking it, too!), and I was a little to angry about it. :P
Anyway, he does have a point about stampin' newbies. That lady was new to things herself. I really don't know what else would compel a person to take another's images and claiming them as their own.
And I like pretty looking watermarks myself. I think it's another way to be creative. Heck, I'd even like to make them for others! ;) All that so say that I get where you're coming from because I don't want my pictures stolen either...
Hi!
In response to Travis' question regarding the difference between image stealing and CASEing...
They are COMPLETELY different. It is WRONG to steal someone else's work. By just taking their image and claiming it as your own is theft. If you do this, you MUST contact the original artist and ask permission AND give them proper credit wherever the card is displayed.
CASEing is when you find a card you like and recreate it. It is impossible to recreate it exactly as the original artist did. I can stare at Trudee's cards all day long, have the same supplies to use and it will never be exactly the same as her original. Also, when you CASE, you must also give the original artist credit.
I think it all comes down to morals and doing what is right.
Do people actually steal images and pass them off as their own?! I'll admit that I have saved pics of cards/projects to my hard-drive to use as examples but I would NEVER post it elsewhere to gain recognition. That's just icky!
itsy bitsy...doesn't distract
I have to admit that I've seen some gorgeous watermarks out there, and I do agree that they are a form of creativity and art!...but I also find it annoying if it covers up their card design. What I've been doing lately is if I take the pic with my digital camera, then I crop the pic leaving space at the bottom, so I put my initials on the card and the rest of it like my blog address below the card. I can't do that with a scan cause everything's black around the card. ?? Anyway, in YOUR examples, I guess I prefer the top (1st) one.
I agree, with all the "image theft" out there, watermarks are becoming more important. As long as they are used correctly, there should not be an issue. By definition, a watermark should be almost transparent and not really noticable.
Thanks for bringing up this important topic.
Post a Comment