signofzeta wrote:
I don’t see why what people on eBay do should be a reason to use what is categorically a worse image. I’m not capable of making a site 1/10 as great as LDDB but if I were I’d make it as good as I could and screw whatever was going on with eBay. You seriously think that every user of your site should have (user submitted) all the pictures watermarked so that people who don’t even come here can see an ad? Are you sure that makes sense? What if Facebook or your ISP did this?
Watermarks show that:
1/ You didn't bother taking your own pic (buyer warning)
2/ You didn't bother to be a LDDb user and download the un-watermaked pic
3/ If it's free for you to use, the cost is just carrying a half transparent ad for LDDb.com that doesn't hide the full cover
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Facebook doesn't mind you using their pics since this way they gather even MORE data on what you do/who you follow.
Pics hosting services sometimes DO start caring about this and are now blocking "3rd party users" unless you pay for it.
Quote:
I apologize for any offenses but I assumed the images were watermarked because that’s what everyone does and that not a lot of thought was put into it. In an age when most bands give away their music for free I’d hope that we could be more free with images someone else took.
You're missing the point here. They're giving away the music because they hope to make it back on concert tickets and merchandising, it's not "free".
The watermarks were not a random choice, they are driven by economics.
Julien