Logos/Watermarks on content images.
 

Oki this is my question to the LL owners.

I understand that it's your LL and all the power to you not a problem with me, and you reserve the right to not list me, and I reserve the right to delete you from my submission list.

But I don't understand why I have to remove all watermakrs/urls/logos (small and non picture intrusive). So that some jackass can boost my exclusive content sets and use them for his/her own profits.

Just to be listed. Your thoughts on this?

-N

They are scared it will put off 1 or 2 free surfers and bring down their rankings.

Nekrom... I am not that sure that you are speaking to the majority. Have you been rejected by specific LL's? lets see the content that you are speaking about. Many free site submitters mark their pics... please give us an example of what you mean.

Paul... who was that directed to?

Someone told you to remove watermarks or not put them on your images?

They shouldn't do that!!!!!! Put watermarks whenever possible I think.

Maybe they were saying the watermarks are too big? That could be. Many decline for that. Like cumonherface images use a watermark the size of a house. It's stupid to do that, the watermark uses 25% or more of the image.

Yeah - it really all depends on the size of the watermark - if you have some examples, post them & we can tell you if you're ok or not :)

Legit Link Lists are all about making the surfer happy :D

I put a small copyright on everything, never had a problem with it.

Watermarks
 

Any material that I have shot and therefore own the copyright to, has a watermark along the bottom or side, so as not to be intrusive.

The only time my material is seen without tghis, is when an affiliate who I know to be trustworthy needs it without. They do have to inform me of all the URL's the images re used on, so that if I find any posted on forums etc. I know where they came from.

Shoots cost $250+ for solo/toys, so why should I let people use it without acknowledgement. This is also part of UK/EU copyright law. A photographer can insist on credit being given for his work where ever it's published :)

can't think of something else than the size of the watermark

please show us some examples of the content
and provide us of the urls of LL that has been rececting your sites

Wow. A bit of activity in this thread.
Sure heres one example of how the sets look.

http://www.evil-porn.com/bdsm/Clip0407.jpg

And sorry I'm not listing the places, as I see no reason to give them free promotion. :D

-N

Nekrom, I have often seen "small and non-instrusive" that cover 20-30% of the total image area, and are totally distracting from the image. They don't block the content, but they dominate it and make it hard to enjoy.

Please to put up some examples of stuff that has been declined (and it might be helpful to mention which link site or TGP has been telling you this) and I am sure we can give you some useful opinions on the subject.

Alex

Look Up. :D

-N

There looks to be two watermarks on the content?

Nekrom, I think I spotted your problem.

You are taking stuff that is already watermarked, and you are adding a VERY prominent watermark over it. The blue band across all the content is VERY annoying to look at. Is there a reason why you put that large blue band all the way across, rather than just adding your URL below the existing watermark?

Images like this:

http://www.evil-porn.com/bdsm/Clip0433.jpg
or
http://www.evil-porn.com/bdsm/Clip0359.jpg

the content is obscured or otherwise impeded by the logos. On top of it, it is TERRIBLE video caps, many link sites won't list it. I personally cannot list it, because you have penetration on a bound subject (which is not a good idea in Canada).

Alex

Correct.
Producer and paysite.

And yes I see your point about the blue bar, I'll amend that on the sets. The logo is the producer, the url is the paysite it's licensed too.

And yes majority of those pics are super shithouse. And yes I relise that they wont get listed on LL.

The point of this thread was about watermarking/branding for licensing reasons. Also I amend to add that the sites reject both in rules and upon submission any images with above mentioned, regardless of url/mark sizing.

-N

Am I correct in assuming someone told you to take the URL watermark off?

Alex

The 2 of them, especially with the one overlapping the other, is a bit too much - I'd slap just the URL of the site under the existing logo (without the horizontal bar)

Sorry I edited instead of re-posting.

The sites mentioned want clean images regardless of url, logo size or licensing. Resulting in Deleted.

-N

I'm failing to understand why the two separate watermarks are required. Whose is the first one in the lower right corner?

UW: He is ripping content from a DVD or CD-R... it's already marked.

Alex

The paysite also being the producers, hand affiliate me the content in question. Content being images already in mediocre caps with white logo on them. Affiliate then adds URL to programs associated paysite.

I think that came out right.

-N

So really, it's not your content, it's content for a paysite. So why are you so excited to put a second watermark on the content?

More importantly, does your sponsor provided the content (and the content producer) specifically permit this?

Alex

The producer being a dept working with said program sells licensed content to them. Producer stamps content with white logo. Program protecting their content stamps own paysite url on the said content. In this case affiliate me saves them time and stamps said paysite url on content for them.

-N

Nekrom, The current logo combination is way too much... It obscures the images, and it takes away from the presentation of those images.

The smaller while logo with a VERY small URL below it might fly, but the URL would have to be similar in color and style as the existing watermark so as to make it look integrated. Otherwise you are likely to get shot down again.

I am really interested: Who told you to take off all the logos and URLs?

Also, after all is said and done, most of the link sites around here wouldn't list the content because it isn't just vidcaps, but horrible, poor quality, poorly colored content. As video clips it MIGHT fly, but as vidcaps, it is horrible. As I said, from a personal standpoint, I couldn't list it because of the combination of penetration and bound subjects.

Alex

Yep it's late and Im head to sleep, but I agree with what your saying. I'll mark some new sets with a white to match the logo, and see how that works.

Yes I also agree that they are some of the crappiest and shodiest looking caps I've ever seen. Still in saying that said mentioned sites sell like flys to shit, go figure.

Interesting on the bound+penetration listing concepts. Never had an issue like that raised before but i'll look into that thanks for the onservations.

And once again I'd rather not mention the sites, the walls have ears you know.

-N

What about inside the memebrs sexction of a paysite, should watermarks/copyrights be on those images as well?

Bill