Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
No Watermarks Stamp by EvilestOne No Watermarks Stamp by EvilestOne
Join the anti-watermarking craze, steal this stamp and use it.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconwoodywood03a:
Woodywood03a Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2012
You are right about that!!!
Reply
:iconcelarania:
celarania Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2012
Invisible watermarks are pretty pointless. You generally have proof that you had the image earlier already. Visible watermarks are there to discourage reuse, even if they don't make it impossible.

Besides, I'm generally more concerned with people selling artwork than people posting it up somewhere.
Reply
:iconblossomforth:
Blossomforth Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I'm fine with Watermarks as long as they're not giant like Deviantart's mark. Those.. Are just horrible.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2012
Yes, those are the "destructive" watermarks.
Reply
:iconflintent:
FlintENT Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
While some watermarks may be bad, I do not agree that no watermarks should be used. It may be "edited" off by the thief but at least, as they are editing it, the original picture will have enough time to get recognized as the original source. You can't really please everyone at the same time, so I rather have people have people criticize that I used a watermark (I would always make it less obstructive as possible) than to have my pictures floating freely on the internet for people to easily claim it is theirs. I know a watermark will not 100% stop thieves, but it CAN help slow them down.
Reply
:iconnoctorno:
Noctorno Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2011
Just a suggestion: You say that you do not mind the less destructive watermarks and are referring to the destructive watermarks as being a problem, right? Then might I recommend you add that to your description and alter your stamp to mean just that? The stamp and description seems to contradict with what you truly think and is a bit misleading.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2011
No, actually I mind them less...I am against all visible watermarking...but consider destructive watermarking by an artist of their own work to be despicable in the extreme.
Reply
:icono0midori-chan0o:
o0Midori-chan0o Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2011  Student Digital Artist
Bahaha agreed.
I might if I thought my work was worth stealing, but I've seen the crappiest MSpaint base edits with a honking watermark sprawled over the image. I'm like, no.
Reply
:icontwo-smokes:
two-smokes Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2009
I agree that watermarks that obscure the art to a point that it can't be stolen make it hardly worth viewing. I have tried to devise a watermark that's more of a signature, as I believe all viewable watermarks should be. Non-destructive, and in some cases accenting the art itself. I don't believe that watermarks in and of themselves are bad, but the destructive ones, sure.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2009
The destructive ones are the ones I am referring to.
Reply
:iconkajua:
Kajua Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2008   Writer
What's the deal with not liking watermarking? How else do you protect yourself from people taking your images and spinnning off cheap reproductions of them, thus lowering their value if you deal in fine art like me..
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2008
In your journal you state that you had forgotten over time what art is...that's the type of person that uses a destructive watermark. You go on to say to live a life by art is to be respective of all it's mediums. Destructive watermarking is NOT being respectful to the art. There isn't a watermark out there that I can't remove, except perhaps like one in this deviation. :thumb26717153: [link]

Art is meant to be viewed, enjoyed, experienced. Not obliterated by slapping a destructive watermark over it, ruining it. The work I do is mainly directly for clients, which is why my gallery here is so sparse, most of what I do is never seen outside of whatever company I'm doing it for, and/or repairs to things others have screwed up, so you might get to see it, but you never know I was the one to do it. On more than one occasion I have had a client decide that the WIP piece I had sent them, despite the lower quality resolution of the work, was "good enough", and they made use of that, paying me only up to that point, in essence "stealing" it from me. And yes, a watermark would have prevented that, but it would also have lessened the impact of the work, and degraded it overall. I've lost a considerable amount of money over the years in that way, and will lose more in years to come. But it's not in me to destroy my work just to make a more money off of it. I don't even consider myself an artist, and I can't bring myself to screw up my own work like this...I don't see how someone that calls themselves an artist could even think of doing so.

If it's just a matter of "protecting yourself" against those that would steal your work, there are invisible watermarks you can use that don't destroy the work at all. Five minutes with google will turn up plenty of options for you. Choosing to destroy your work isn't an option an ARTIST should choose. And certainly not branding it with a dA logo...
Reply
:iconkajua:
Kajua Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2008   Writer
My work is just a sampler too, I never ever post anything I do on commission on any format of web. I've heard and seen the horror stories come real. It's asking to be sued to fail to comply with those.

In the area I work, there have been reports previously of people basically right clicking, stealing your image, and then printing it out on their little HP all in one printers with plain fax paper, pinning it on their wall rather than the 11880 we use to print high quality, large prints.

When they do so they disregard our service, and instead they basically (like in your case) rip me in particular completely off, and so the company too. If a party comes over to the house of the person that does this, sees that print which is advertised as a limited print, 3 in existence depending on the context..well what if they have one too? The value goes down drastically, and sometimes the lawyers have to be called to force the person that printed the replicae to destroy their meager copy.

It's quality control, like it or not. I suppose I could completely agree with you, and I would, if I didn't do this for a living. :)

I suppose when you think about it by your definition of art, I'm no artist. I'm a businessman.

Then again, I create art, doesn't that make me an artist?

Conudrums and paradoxes, loosely put together by definitions and clashing of opinion.

The watermark is added security, and you need no courtroom to prove its yours :D most people who come to my site know what they're looking for, and just want another medium to view it in.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2008
If it were just a matter of proving it was yours, then the invisible watermark would be enough. The watermark you are talking about using basically makes the art look so bad that no one would want to "steal" it, by printing it out on an all-in-one and pinning it to their wall.

Of course, the guy that is willing to settle for a printed out copy of a piece of art isn't likely to buy your art in the first place, so you are in no way diminished by his having done so, and in fact may benefit from his having done so, if someone else comes by and sees the picture pinned to the wall of his computer room and asks about it, then "discovers" you as an artist, likes your work, and DOES buy something from you.

As for your limited to 3 prints situation...it still does not devalue the piece, as they do not have the limited edition piece, they have an 8x10 on fax paper. Now, if they were taking the image, printing it up in a quality approaching that which you are talking about, and then selling it off as the original, then yes, you would definitely have a problem there.

As the RIAA and the MPAA found out, going after people that are making a copy for their own personal use is bad business. Getting a lawyer to make someone shred an 8x10 on fax paper they printed is taking it to an even greater extreme than the RIAA did suing a grandmother for downloading some songs.

Basically, anything that gets your art a wider exposure is a good thing for an artist. And if you want to sell the highest quality, limited edition prints, you can still do that, and no one else can, as long as you retain the massive resolution original images.

Oh, and I do this for a living too, just a little differently than you do. ;)

Headed out for the holidays...have a good weekend.
Reply
:iconkajua:
Kajua Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2008   Writer
In theory that all works out as you said, but it's just an extra pre-caution. Like I said, quality control. It doesn't take 15 mpx to create a 20x30, anything 800 pixels wide is enough and can be made up very easily into their own print, fax paper or extra premium canvas.

Nobody seems to have the opinion that I've encountered from you about the watermarks ruining the image, but to each their own, if they do they can contact me and see it in another form, an actual print in person is common.

It takes down the value for the print to be re-printed in any format, not just 8x10 nor 20x30, postcards depreciate value too.

It takes money and time and effort to hire a lawyer, much less find one willing to spend the time and the effort to go after a case like that.

It's just so much easier to watermark :) ! Happy holidays
Reply
:iconlovemedont:
LoveMeDont Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2008
I agree that plastering a watermark all over your image is a way to runi it, but I do put small watermarks on mine because Im not quite sure how to do invisible ones etc, wish I did though
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2008
The ones you use are not destructive watermarks. The ones I hate so much are the destructive ones...the ones that are plastered across an image. From what I understand, Photoshop has an invisible watermarking ability in it, and you can find other methods through google. I recommend using several, because any single watermark can be gotten around, and the more (invisible) ones you use, the better your chances.
Reply
:iconlovemedont:
LoveMeDont Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2008
Thanks for the information Ill look that up because I dont like putting them on, its distracting
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2008
No problem.
Reply
:iconc09jlt:
C09JLT Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2007
I really don't see the huge issue with watermarks myself. You can see around them if you want to, and I don't think less of artists that want to try to protect their works. It might not be the best way, but I won't berate somebody for trying.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2008
There are lots of non-destructive ways to watermark your image, that are far more effective. Invisible watermarks, ones embedded in the image itself that can't be seen, are far more effective, because if the thief doesn't know it's there, he won't remove it. Plastering watermarks all over your image, obscuring and destroying it as art, just to make it unattractive enough not to be stolen is not the solution. Better to not create it at all if you are just going to destroy it.
Reply
:iconc09jlt:
C09JLT Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2008
Hey, I said it might not be the best way, but I think it is a bit much to get all angry about it. If they want to, let them, you know better, so do it your way.
Reply
:iconasmm-duckhugger:
aSMm-Duckhugger Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2008   Traditional Artist
The only folks the watermarking artists are hurting is the non-thieves that would like to view and enjoy their art! Any thief worth a grain of salt can edit out watermarks in Photoshop (takes a mere stretch of minutes in most cases)!

Watermarks are being falsely promoted around DA as some kind of "good protection strategy" when in reality it's a good way for an artist to make themselves look like selfish and tacky presenters! Also, to people in the know about how easy ALL copy-protection is to circumvent, it makes them look like schmucks!
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2008
Destructive watermarks should make anyone that sees them angry. Calling anything with a destructive watermark on it "art" is a joke.
Reply
:iconprincessprince:
PrincessPrince Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2008
No seriously...

Shut up.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2008
Because?
Reply
:icongroovaciousk:
groovaciousk Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2007
Ok, this may sound stupid, but what are watermarks?
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2007
The destructive ones are the things you see plastered across art, blocking your view, in the mistaken assumption that it will keep someone from stealing your pictures and using them for something else. deviantArt itself has one you can use, just by clicking a box when you submit your deviation (and that submit is the one the dA ID refers to, not being submissive. :) ). The one dA has is the one with the dA logo and your URL on it, that goes right in the middle of an image. Some "artists" use their own, putting their name or email address or URL right across the image.

There are a lot of ways to protect an image without destroying it, including what is called invisible watermarks. Hidden coding in the image file itself. The reason most "artists" don't choose that option is that they are lazy...using invisible watermarks means that once you have found someone using your image without your permission, instead of just bitching about it here and elsewhere, you would actually have to tell the person to stop using your watermarked image, and then reveal the watermark (or one of them if you are smart and used several) proving that it is your image, not theirs.

This image [link] uses a watermark that would be considered "destructive", though it is a mild one, there are far worse ones out there. Any watermark that obscures the image is a "destructive watermark".
Reply
:iconasmm-duckhugger:
aSMm-Duckhugger Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2008   Traditional Artist
Even invisible watermarking can be worked around by art-thieves. I tend to think ALL forms of copy-protection are just silly and useless. The visible ones can be easily shopped out... the invisible ones can be worked around by a simple use of the "print screen" and "paste" functions. Confront art-theft where it happens... sure... but no one should feel like copy-protection and watermarking is EVER a good plan!
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2008
All watermarking can be gotten around. The advantage to invisible watermarking is that you don't know it's there unless you check for it, and most thieves don't bother to check.
Reply
:iconasmm-duckhugger:
aSMm-Duckhugger Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2008   Traditional Artist
I suppose that would be right. I still don't worry or bother with it too much. I have a pretty distinct style to my art and I keep most of my originals filed away in huge troves. Someone would have to be an idiot to try to steal from me and claim my work as their own!
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2008
I don't worry about it either. Most of my work isn't on here, since it's directly for clients, but I don't watermark my stuff either. Defeats the purpose of trying to show people what I do, when I obscure it with crap smeared over the pic.
Reply
:iconadmiranda:
admiranda Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2007  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
I LOVES IT! :D
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2007
You should, those are your boobies on the stamp. :) So, put it to good use...make sure it gets seen all over...
Reply
:iconadmiranda:
admiranda Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2007  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
lol how do I put it up??
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
In the "Details" section by the "Artists Comments" there's a section that says "Thumb". Try pasting that code, that might do it. Otherwise, download it and host it somewhere, then link back to it. The second way is the way I have always done it.

:thumb68038272:
Reply
:iconadmiranda:
admiranda Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
AHHH ok..
Reply
:iconalonely:
Alonely Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2007
How immature.
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
How so?
Reply
:iconbodyartist:
Bodyartist Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
Must be in high school, she posts her grades on-line (at least the good ones).... but I think I got higher grades than that in chemistry..... I was a frustrated scientist my whole life, more of an artist all around.
Reply
:iconalonely:
Alonely Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
Congratulations on your high grades.
Reply
:iconbodyartist:
Bodyartist Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2007
Thank you, they served me well, and I never had to post them for the world/strangers to see.
Reply
:iconalonely:
Alonely Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2007
I've done nothing to insult you, and yet you attempt to belittle me. :P
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
I got that impression too. Not old enough to be looking at my gallery.
Reply
:iconbodyartist:
Bodyartist Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2007
Probably right :)

It's an odd thing here... I came across an older profile and the person had marked their works "mature" then couldn't view them because they were under 18 <G>
Reply
:iconevilestone:
EvilestOne Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2007
That definitely qualifies as amusing... :)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconalonely:
Alonely Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2007
Random deviation. :)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 23, 2007
Image Size
28.8 KB
Resolution
99×56
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,955 (2 today)
Favourites
23 (who?)
Comments
59
Downloads
46

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
×