Question about watermark removal

I know rules state not to remove artist watermarks/signatures like the ones Nask Nach and Jack Russell place. How about watermarks indicating the source of the image such as those by 500px, Playboy, wallpaperswide and others?

Generally it's never a good idea to remove a watermark. It's too easy to step into legal complications plus it's very hard to do without leaving ugly traces. If you're certain that a watermark wasn't added by the original creator/owner you should first try to find a non-watermarked version that might already exist somewhere on the web.

The idea is to protect owners/creators. 500px doesn't fall into that category, only the artists who upload their pictures to 500px do. Playboy on the other hand owns their pictures (they pay contracted photographers).

wallpaperswide is basically like us except they slap a watermark onto anything they can get their hands on. Obviously they don't own the wallpapers and they got it from somewhere else without the watermark.

Gandalf said:

plus it's very hard to do without leaving ugly traces

That's not entirely true : the Photoshop content aware eraser (don't know the english name) is incredibly powerful :-)

shadomare said:

Gandalf said: That's not entirely true : the Photoshop content aware eraser (don't know the english name) is incredibly powerful :-)

Especially in the hands of a skilled photoshopper.

So in the case of these two: Exhibit A[6qodxx] Exhibit B

2048 x 1369102

Which is the correct one to keep? A is older than B by almost 4 hours but doesn't have a 500px watermark. I'm going to assume that in this case, A is the correct one because it was uploaded first and because 500px doesn't own rights to the image.

However, if these were Playboy or Aleksandr Mavrin images, B would be the one to keep. Am I correct?

defurious I'm not going to pretend that this decision is trivial or obvious. In the case you mentioned I'd be happier to keep them both and just group them, as the version with the watermark also has some white overlay going on. Secondly the watermark was removed in a way that clearly left trace. I'm not saying those are immediately noticeable but there is a twig randomly dissolving into nothingness…

But yes. If I'd have to keep one I'd keep the one on the left in the case of 500px but not in the case of individual artists.

I'm still a bit torn on Playboy, I'm not quite sure how ownership is handled in their case. It's not easy to figure out when a platform actually obtains ownership and when it just distributes while paying royalties. Copyright is complicated.

I always report that kind of wallpapers.. the other thing is that those reports piling up and never gets resolved xD

Gandalf said:

defurious I'm not going to pretend that this decision is trivial or obvious.

Hehe. Yeah, I forgot to include the disclaimer, "Assuming both are identical except for the watermark removal." I know I'm nitpicking here but it just kinda bugged me after I ran across these two in my collection and then I also the two I reported where one had the watermark cropped out. Thing is, I'd never seen that watermark before and I couldn't tell if it was an artist or website or something else. Guess I'm just bored and looking for ways to keep you guys on your toes, hahaha.

Cryzeen Maybe we should dial it back a bit on these reports and things, everything is getting wiped once we leave Alpha anyway. Soon™ ;)

defurious said:

Cryzeen Maybe we should dial it back a bit on these reports and things, everything is getting wiped once we leave Alpha anyway. Soon™ ;)

Not necessarily ;)