Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut
Nope, that wouldn't be cool but you took my example in a different direction. The example I gave was using a watermarked image on a webmaster board where the content provider would be having his/her content exposed to hundreds or thousands of potential affiliates. You're arguing that the circumstances surrounding the act should be acted upon the same way no matter the intent but from what I've seen this isn't the case for any type of law.
|
So it's cool if webmaster "X" posts in thread on webmaster boards with images you worked hard to produce, paid a lot to produce, as long as your watermark is intact? Even though that picture is not linked to your product? All the while webmaster 'X" is getting sig views, clicks, and pr for a product you have no affiliation with.
Oh and what about all the images posted on webmaster boards that may or may not be licensed by the poster and don't contain watermarks?
What if Joe Bob the Noob starts a site called AdultWebmasterWaterMarkedImages.com and posts all your work as well as others? Is that cool too? Keep in mind his sig links to a program that will make him money and not you. However the site is "aimed" at webmasters, so that is cool by you right? Joe Bob the Noob is jacking your pictures, but hell other webmasters might see your watermark and purchase your content. And all the other webmasters that Joe Bob the Noob got to sign up under his referral code in his sig because he posted a "She is hot" pic with your watermarked images, that's cool too?