Who Cares? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I read quite well and my comprehension is fine. You, on the other hand, make it very obvious that you don't pay production costs, staff to maintain production, or do anything other than promote other people's products. That being the case, your sense of entitlement is astounding.

My guess would be the affiliates who are making money with me. You know, people who are actually in this business. :thumbsup

The collective IQ of gfy dropped because of this thread.




Tempest is the next minusonebit

Watermarking is not too rip off affiliate sales, I want affiliates to make good sales so they keep sending more. duh

I watermark so when my stuff gets ripped off, posted and hotlinked all over the net you have a chance of getting something out of it from your brand.

Or when members join and download your clips and post them to tubes and torrents, whatever it may be.

I do disagree with sponsors that brand with a different domain than the paysite. That's flat out sneaky. I don't do that.

However I believe the main reason they do this is because they are lazy and it takes so much more space and time. A lot of that content is used on many different sites and to re-encode the clips with different matching urls takes double, triple, the time and space, or so on, depending how many sites.

For sure you don't expect us to put content out there with no branding at all on it.

That's the stupidest thing any site owner could do.

here's my :2 cents: on this oen
for example we have paysite: SiteName.com

- watermarking content with SiteName is ok
- watermarking content with site logo is ok (if it does not contain full url)
- watermarking content with SiteName.com is NOT ok (traffic leak)
- watermarking content with SiteNetwork.com - also not ok but (traffic leak but not that bad as one above IMO)

:Oh crap

Set cookies for the watermark URLs, and the issue is sorted.
If for some fucked up reason you can't promote the network site, promote someone else.

Well.. I for one could care less about content being watermarked.... because if any lawyer comes calling, I just redirect them to the sponsor. It really is that simple.

And secondly, I completely agree that since I had no hand in producing and paying for the content, I am merely here for distribution and promotion, I honestly can't justify removing the watermark and being able to sleep at night... maybe I have morals and it's just the right thing to do.

Thirdly, If I don't like a sponsors actions, I pull all links and move on to another one, there's plenty out there for the picking. The sponsors who know I am dedicated to their programs know who they are and I know they appreciate my efforts, as small or insignificant to the larger whales out there.

Anyways, just my :2 cents:

Yes, watermark on any content should be visible as some graphic logo of the program or some letters of for example program name or owner name, something like GFY. It should never be full url of the site. I never use content with url as watermark. Some program owners think that webmasters are idiots...

but it's perfectly ok for you to have traffic leaks with our content?
ie: tgp recips, free site recips, dating sponsors, etc etc....

affiliates abuse the hell outta that!
paleez, this has gone for enough.

Some program owners are idiots, but nothing compared to the amount of mentally retarded "affiliates" out there. ALL works should be credited. Plenty of "affiliates" take quality content, crop off the watermark and use the content to promote sites with the perceived highest payouts. Stealing the works of others for profit, devaluing the content then anonymously movin on.

But no talk about that ... only "OMGZZZZ!!!! the watermarks!!! All my monies is gone!!!!!!!!!


This is the dumbest GFY thread in a long time. it's time to bump Steve Lightspeeds thread about affiliates.

Right, so you are in agreement that content is stolen all the time, however you still think content providers/sponsors have no right to watermark the content?

:2 cents: