My watermark got me blocked from a thread.

[Blukoo]

Like most photographers, whenever I post some pictures I make sure my watermark is on them.

However I received an email saying it was classed as advertising and I have now been banned from posting in the "Why are there so few car photographs?" and "Random Photos" thread.

If I try to post, I just get the message, "You have been denied access to this topic."

Has anyone else received this treatment, or am I being singled out?

[Magic919]

If you watermark them and, if I recall correctly, you mention this in the threads then you'll get reported. Unless you are one of the chosen 'names' amongst the businesses or individuals they'll apply the rules against you. PH is that way.

[Blukoo]

Magic919 said:

If you watermark them and, if I recall correctly, you mention this in the threads then you'll get reported. Unless you are one of the chosen 'names' amongst the businesses or individuals they'll apply the rules against you. PH is that way.

No other photographers who have their watermarks seem to get any hassle. I don't get it...

[mybrainhurts]

Ask the question in the Website Feedback forum.

You might just get a reply, but I'm still waiting, one week post-ban..

[Turn7]

Sadly, PH is now very much not what it used to be.

Only the samller fora remain as they were, but the moderation is, erm, unique.

[crmcatee]

Bloody stupid if that's their justification especially when it's your own copyright (I can see them not doing it if it was someone else's copyright).

I believe the Mods need a dose of common sense.

[mikef]

Is this the same watermark as in your profile pics? I doubt that this social website is going to be happy about a watermark that promotes another social website

[MOTORVATOR]

I think you may be confusing the term watermark with label.

[hadenough!]

Agreed, sign of the times I'm afraid. Much like he patronising rule reminder I had to accept to post this.

[spitfire4v8]

It's not really a watermark though if it's tucked into the corner of the picture and easily cropped-out, as yours appear to be. It's hardly going to stop people stealing / passing off as their own .. is it?
Though I agree there has been some "special" moderation going on around these parts for a long time now..

[Rogue86]

If people want the picture enough, no amount of watermarking will help you, most people have the ability to clone out someones name across an image. The point is it stops people sharing the image at face value without the photographer at least getting some recognition.

[jeremyc]

There is a fine line between watermarking photos and promoting one's business through them.

From what I remember, blukoo's pictures had a large watermark that identified his company name and contact details. He also chose to post a large number of pictures across a number of threads.

From my perspective this crossed the line into advertising and promotion of his commercial photography business. As such, I think the moderation did show the application of common sense.

So, think about a discreet watermark and don't use the posting of photos to promote your business, and everyone will be happy.

[TheRainMaker]

Just remove the company info and leave your name.

Simple people can still contact you through your profile if they want.

[GetCarter]

Blukoo said:

Like most photographers, whenever I post some pictures I make sure my watermark is on them.

However I received an email saying it was classed as advertising and I have now been banned from posting

Ridiculous.

[OlberJ]

As with most things on here, it'll 90% be down to someone hitting the clipe button.

Enough clipes = thread/posts removed.

[Simpo Two]

Clipe?

I suppose it depends how many photos you post, and whether it's a 'RAR look at my work!' post or otherwise.

[Dan_1981]

Does seem a little OTT

[OlberJ]

Simpo Two said:

Clipe?

Report/Grass/Moan/Seeascompetitionorjustdon'tlikethem button

[Simpo Two]

You must have invented it yesterday - it only has three hits on Google!

[Boro]

Gripe?