I understand this photo was one of the rare good ones taken on the day Conrad Black began to serve his sentence. But does this photo really need two watermarks? Is someone selling it on the black market or something?
I understand this photo was one of the rare good ones taken on the day Conrad Black began to serve his sentence. But does this photo really need two watermarks? Is someone selling it on the black market or something?
Worst part is, anyone could crop out the bottom watermark, and someone who was motivated enough, and with enough basic Photoshop skill, could take the time to efface the large grey one. Congratulations, you’ve made it mildly inconvenient for someone to rip off your picture.
No kidding. With a low res and noisy image like that you can photoshop out both watermarks in about five minutes.
Keep in mind this is a highly-compressed version of the original. Click on the picture to see what’s on their page.
The point is not that it’s easy to photoshop out the watermarks. The point is that maybe there are some people who enjoy looking at photos without giant words across the middle of them.
In the battle between protection of intellectual property and presenting a high-quality product to readers, the Post has come down on the side of its own intellectual property.
Should we, as readers, accept things like this in general?