Question On Watermarking Content...

[Lee]

I know this is a touchy subject for affiliates but im wondering what is best to use when watermarking content?

Do you think it is more prudent to use a URL, a site logo, or both?

I have to say ive never really given this much thought until now and my gut instinct tells me to watermark images and movies with both the site logo and url but im just wondering what others do, and more importantly, what affiliates prefer?

Regards,

Lee

[samebb]

I have started placing the sites logo with the domain name underneath it on exclusive images. I still dont watermark non-exclusive content, but maybe i should ? who knows.

When it comes to videos a logo can piss a lot of people off. I find it easier to actually put the domain name along the base of the video, fading it out to around 30% opacity. Its amazing how you dont see it enless you look, but when you look you can read it clearly.

I think anyone who doesnt watermark exclusive content very well, is infact foolish. If your clever about it you can make it next to impossible for people to steal it.

[basschick]

a url lets the surfers know where to go to get more content like it.

[samebb]

a url lets the surfers know where to go to get more content like it.

Yup, thats one advantage. If stuff is posted on p2p networks, newsgroups ect you do actually get free marketing :specs:

[EmporerEJ]

Well, a true watermark, i.e. an invisible one, would be what we preferred. We couldn't use content that says "Dave's porn Shack" in the corner.

(I apologize to Dave if he exists.)

[A_DeAngelo]

a visible "brand" is good for us - people know where to get more

and since our videos are not encoded for DRM, they will most likely end up everywhere for FREE - and we definately want people to know where all of that good stuff cums from....

we do add in extra steps to help copyright our photos one is a secret but the other uses an embedded copyright command in our programming step - this helps cement an invisible copyright notice in the file of each and every photo - we can follow the content and find the info on the images when necessary - this helps when going after non-licensed users...

[lisa]

In Badpuppy's early days, we used to have both on the model images. Over time the Puppy logo was removed, leaving just the site url along the left or right edge of the image, where it is not obstructing any part of the model itself.

It simply looked way too commercial with both the url and logo on the image. Even though the Puppies are so cute, it is more important to present the url on the image, laying the path for users to visit the site.

Since our pictures were constantly being downloaded and used all over, it was look at as a means of free advertising. Most do not take the time to crop off the url. When we did find, or get reported to us that our images were on a given site, we in most cases would contact them and end up turning it into a relationship where they'd promote Badpuppy in exchange for legal use of the images.

The url on the model images will suffice and we do the same thing with our model videos, but do so at the very bottom and small enough just to be seen, not where it interferes with the video.

[d@sexinc]

We used to watermark everything with a url of the site it was going on, but soon realized that doing so limited the use of the content on another site years later.
Now we are in the habit of just putting the product name (Chisel or Sizzle), not the url on the hosted vids and pics if we're making FHG for promo.

Dave

[gaybucks_chip]

We use the Digimarc invisible watermark, which suppresses the images in content-filtered browsers, and we use an easy-to-read but stylized typeface with the site URL as a visible watermark.

We also keep unwatermarked high resolution versions of the edited videos and stills so that if we later repurpose the content, it isn't difficult to add a new watermark down the road.

[tigermom]

As an affiliate, watermarks are a possible leak. While I see how this is good, and even needed, for the sponsor, in the end of the day, making it easier for people to type in your domain name after they've been introduced to free pics, means the sale doesn't get credited to the affiliate.

I do see the need in watermarking though. As an affiliate, a small watermark with sitename.com is ok. The one place where this gets crucial, is if I want to use the content for galleries or freesites. I have approached sponsors in the past and asked for non-watermarked sets just for that and that usually worked.