Watermarks/logos On Captioned Pics?

[midnightfapper]

What do you guys think of watermarks and logos on captioned pictures? I mean for the website/photographer/owner of the original picture, not the person who made the caption.

To me it seems distracting, a big obnoxious "GENERICPORNDOTCOM" logo on the image pulls you out of the fantasy, but at the same time it feels disrespectful to omit the creator who's work you are building yours on. Especially if it's a small-time or solo artist and not a big company.

 

[peakmb]

Midnight,
I take the view that the vast majority of 'porn' pictures (on the big sites and tumbl at least) are there with the implicit approval of the model / agent. They generate ******** and publicity for paid for appearances, film work billing and maybe in some cases personal meetings / ********* etc.. If you are famous, your price goes up. In this area there is very little that counts as 'bad' publicity and your picture being re-used as fantasy fodder in someone else's captions usually would be acceptable publicity I would think. The agencies that take the pictures will probably be paid for the work or be connected to the artist's earnings (husband / agent etc.). From the artist's business perspective, the watermarks detract from the main point of the picture, and certainly detract on a caption. No one realistically is going to open a jpeg based on the watermark name. They add no value to the picture in my view. Nearly all websites carry labels saying any pictures will be removed if the copyright holder objects to them being shown. A small operator starting up is better building a name within the business for their work rather than their watermark. It won't help them with the people who are actually going to employ them, quite the reverse in my view.

 

[midnightfapper]

That's a really interesting point, I never thought about it that way.