On 9/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Gerard</b> <<a href="mailto:dgerard@gmail.com">dgerard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 11/09/2007, Ayelie <<a href="mailto:ayelie.at.large@gmail.com">ayelie.at.large@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> On 9/11/07, David Gerard <<a href="mailto:dgerard@gmail.com">dgerard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
> > <a href="http://searchengineland.com/070911-083723.php">http://searchengineland.com/070911-083723.php</a><br><br>> I see this possibly leading to slews of watermarked images stamped with<br>> website addresses.
<br>> :(<br><br><br>So? They're Crappy and will end up being Replaced. Or the watermark removed.<br></blockquote></div><br>They could be good-quality and have a hard-to-remove watermark. Who is going to go through 200+ images a month and remove watermarks? It isn't easy, and we already have large backlogs. Prevention is key, but unfortunately a lot of people in the commercial industry (including pro photographers who are uploading pictures for commercial reasons) have issues with not being directly credited. Remember the hullabaloo with the sports photographer repeatedly reverting his image to the watermarked version, leading its protection and his departure?
<br><br>New images are great, but perhaps we should emphasize that watermarks are Not Allowed. Not just discouraged, but Not Allowed. On an encyclopedia, having a watermark leading to a website amounts to promotion and such images shouldn't be on articles purporting to be NPOV.
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Ayelie<br> ~Editor at Large