double standards?

Hello. Today a curious report came to my box. A while ago I've reported a wallpaper: http://alpha.wallhaven.cc/wallpaper/224200 With link to this one: http://alpha.wallhaven.cc/wallpaper/349753

It clearly breaking the rules:

• Do not stretch images to a higher resolution—upload the original version where possible.
• Respect copyright. Attribute the author wherever possible. Do not upload content from banned sources. Do not remove artist signatures/watermarks.

But it wasn't deleted or cleared or anything. Is it because it was uploaded by one of the moderators? That would be sad.

Cryzeen: Hmm. I added a source to both wallpapers now. I think that a little crop from that wallpaper doesn't mean it's not a photographer's/author's property anymore. It's tagged with his name and now has a source to his site. It means a respect for copyright as you mentioned. It's not a banned source. So now this wall could stay on this site IMO. BTW we have here a tons of cropped walls, especially NSFW (SG for example) still here and it's OK for me.

Well I disagree. Artists puts their watermarks/banners/inscriptions on their work so anyone that sees their work can find them by it. Some of them are kind enough to put it on the edges but it doesn't mean that you can crop it and say that nothing happened because this work is still theirs. Adding tags on this website changes nothing in this matter because once downloaded the wallpaper can travel from one computer to another and tags will not.

double

Cryzeen: But you reported that wall because of broken rules on THIS SITE. We are not talking about who can or can't download it for any reason. We are talking about a wall on this site. So as I said, it has an artist tag and source and it's not a banned source. That wall belongs in here. BTW it was cropped by someone just to have a usable resolution (1920x1080).

Do not remove artist signatures/watermarks. - That's the rule of this site.

Maybe you didn't know it was removed when you were uploading it but now you know, thx to my report. But as I see reporting is kinda waste of time because anyone can interpret the rules like they please.

Cryzeen: I disagree, reporting walls is very importrant so don't take it personally and just continue to do it. But yes, you are right I didn't know that watermark was removed. And what about you just as fresh example: your upload Did you know that watermark is missing too??? (Just visit his page and you will see). I think you didn't. But still credit reminds to photographer because of his rights and you added a source and tags too. You make same mistakes like others so be a little slower with judging. Thanx.

The rule exists to prevent people from specifically removing artists' marks while keeping the rest of the picture as is. For example if somebody cuts off only the part with the signature or uses something like Photoshop's stamp tool to remove/draw over the signature that's not okay.

However for practical reasons we do accept wallpapers that were cropped to one of the common screen resolutions, like 1920x1080. If the original resolution has a weird non-standard ratio with a signature in the corner that may get lost. It's not ideal but then there is no simple way of "moving" the signature. Standard resolutions are more useful to our users. We also encourage users to also upload the original resolution of a wallpaper wherever possible so we can group them together.

Additionally I'd like to mention that watermarks or often added to existing wallpapers. For example other wallpaper websites like to leave their URL in the corner. In such cases we will obviously prefer the original version of the wallpaper without the watermark since it has nothing to do with the artist.

I think the rules need some adjustments. Yes, removing watermarks is bad. But in this case i think it's justified, kejsirajbek already mentioned that the image was cropped so it could fit the most common aspect ratio for monitors (16:9). Most modern cameras don't shoot in 16:9 by default, so you already see a problem why a lot of the photographs need to be cropped if you want to use them as wallpapers. It happens quite often where the artists uploads the image in some very odd aspect ratio so i'm forced to crop it if i want people to actually find the wallpaper. Few times i have actually moved the watermark just so it would still be in the picture, but only if it's been an easy edit.

In this case you should just do the "1 other size" merge.

kejsirajbek said:

Cryzeen: I disagree, reporting walls is very importrant so don't take it personally and just continue to do it. But yes, you are right I didn't know that watermark was removed. And what about you just as fresh example: your upload Did you know that watermark is missing too??? (Just visit his page and you will see). I think you didn't. But still credit reminds to photographer because of his rights and you added a source and tags too. You make same mistakes like others so be a little slower with judging. Thanx.

Maybe we are misunderstanding what watermark is... cuz there's normally added GOROKHOV inscription on the bottom right. But if I'm wrong and there's still something missing which you aware of then go ahead and just delete this upload. Simple as that.

Gandalf: For example if somebody cuts off only the part with the signature or uses something like Photoshop's stamp tool to remove/draw over the signature that's not okay.

Your explanations clarifying the rule, thank you for interest in this matter.

Added 2016-03-26 20:58:20

sannukas0016 said:

I think the rules need some adjustments. Yes, removing watermarks is bad. But in this case i think it's justified, kejsirajbek already mentioned that the image was cropped so it could fit the most common aspect ratio for monitors (16:9). Most modern cameras don't shoot in 16:9 by default, so you already see a problem why a lot of the photographs need to be cropped if you want to use them as wallpapers. It happens quite often where the artists uploads the image in some very odd aspect ratio so i'm forced to crop it if i want people to actually find the wallpaper. Few times i have actually moved the watermark just so it would still be in the picture, but only if it's been an easy edit. In this case you should just do the "1 other size" merge.

One word.. I agree it should be merged, I didn't expect anything other. But doing nothing just pushed me to start this topic.

I, for one, appreciate that you started this topic. It is through such topics that existing methods of maintaining the website are either tweaked to be better or current procedures are explained better to the end user. Either way is a win-win.

My only problem with this thread is the title. "double standards?". Why feel so rushed to think the worst? Why have the attitude that it must have been because the wallpaper belongs to a staff member? Why not start a discussion and see what it uncovers before making sensational accusations against staff?

We work for free, in our spare time, because we believe in this site and want to make it the best. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, more likes and views do not earn the site more money. We have no incentive to do wrong by the users and keep rule-breaking wallpapers around. I would really love it if next time you wish to discuss something, or have a query about why something was done or not done, you do not take this approach.

Thanks for your reporting. It makes the site better :)