The Hungarian national contest prohibited watermarks for images last year
(and personally I don't like pictures with watermark).
In Wikimedia Commons:
*
Samat
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Nicu Buculei <nicubunu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/07/2012 12:35 AM, Андрій Бондаренко wrote:
Hi everyone,
Recently one of our participant asked me - could I upload photos with
watermarks? He argues that he loose original versions (without
watermarks) and their removing demands to much time. What should I
answer him? Are photos with watermarks (as theese
<http://toolserver.org/~**magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?**
language=commons&project=**wikimedia&categories=Images_**
with_watermarks&negcats=**Images+from+Wiki+Loves+**
Monuments+2012&ns[6]=1&ext_**image_data=1&doit=1<http://tool…
)
allowed?
I had a look at a few random images there and I can identify a few cases:
- real watermarks (didn't find any in the examples) are when a big
watermark covers a large and important part of the image, making it
unusable (think at the preview images from stock photography sites). those
CAN'T be allowed;
- signatures, small watermarks in an unobtrusive part of the image (most
of the time in a corner). I allow those but discourage them by explaining
the uploaders that grace to our free license, anyone is allowed to remove
them, so is useless;
- some photos have the date watermarked in a corner, this probably
happened most of the time in-camera and are unintentional. I feel them
annoying but harmless;
- i saw a few cases the name of an educational institution there. For
those I would ask the uploader if the image is really free (it may be an
internal policy to watermark everything at it may forbid derivatives).
So in conclusion I do not like watermarks, would alow some, would forbid
some, would question further some. Case by case.