/abdl/ - Adult Baby - Diaper Lover★

Because people like to catfish, steal identities, and play up that they are someone they are not. This usually makes a person look bad, so to counter that, they use watermarks. Also, no one likes people stealing their content, people who do mostly do so for their own gain. So yeah, it is stupid but its got its reasons

>>56776

"steal identities"

what difference does it make if someone places "my" pic on another board?

Why does it make the other person look bad?

Its not like posing in diapers and taking selfies require a high amount of work or dignity.

>>56776

>stealing their content

I don't believe anyone has ever broken into a tumblr users house and stolen their hard drives.

Did you mean "copying their content"?

>>56786

You do not understand what stealing means.

>>56775 (OP)

Yeah man I feel the same way, tattoos are shit

>>56775 (OP)

it's the same motivation of original character do not steal

>>56775 (OP)

I actually don't mind having some kind of watermark it makes them easier to organize

>>56790

Some of the tats are really irritating

>>56777

It's frustrating to see people gaining from your own content, I've also had a couple of people use my image to beg for rent money etc. That said, I don't personally watermark. A certain amount of image stealing is expected when you're out there online but it never gets less annoying. Especially on tumblr where if you want the image on your blog you can damn well reblog it

>>56775 (OP)

It's mainly because this fetish is filled with fucking autists who steal the images and pretend to be the girls in them while saying the weirdest goddamn things on tumblr which makes the person in the photos look like a bigger sperg than they already are.

I don't mind it. I like jacking off to letters anyway. Especially vowels. Vowels are sexy.

>>56789

The taking of the property of another without their consent.

That's the legal definition. If you take their property right of "exclusive use" which is an essential stick in the bundle of property rights, according to the SCOTUS in a case about a utility putting their stuff on a person's property.

This can easily be applied to taking away their exclusive use by making a copy for your own use. You may think it's not theft in the 1500s sense of the word, but definitely it is within the definition as used the last 100 years.

>>56841

The courts have literally ruled that copyright infringement isn't theft and shouldn't be described as such in the courtroom.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3901205964610715556

>>63169

I want to believe you're not retarded enough to miss the entire point, but I feel like it's wasting valuable hope

>>56775 (OP)

So autistic retards LARPing as diaper girls don't re-caption the pictures and post them under their faggy RP handles.

>>63166

It's mostly flat colors so wouldn't be hard to touch up in GIMP. You could get a 99% improvement in 10 minutes and completely remove it in an hour or so.

It's such a generic, boring image that I wouldn't bother though. There are hundreds of better artists who don't watermark their work.

“Hey I wanna take a picture of myself and put it on my blog. Gee, and if people like it and share it, it’d be great if people could find where it came from so I get more traffic”

“Lol wow ur such an autist”

Jfc you’re all just spoiled entitled little bitches who cry when other peoples shit isn’t presented the exact way YOU want it, and then make it out as their problem instead of yours. I don’t caption my tumblr because I’m lazy and don’t feel an express need to but jesus fuck trying to pretend like you have to be retarded to think watermarks are a good idea just shows how entirely lacking in self-awareness you are.

>>63315

but dude there's about 2.28% of her legs covered by letters the fapping is ruined for the entire week

>>63315

>Gee, and if people like it and share it, it’d be great if people could find where it came from so I get more traffic

To play devil's advocate, the best way to do that isn't to put the URL in the middle of the image. If you want to provide a link to your blog, you stick it in a corner in a clearly legible font with good contrast.

The purpose of watermarks is to enforce copyright, or at the very least to prevent plagiarism.

On the topic of watermarks, if anyone wants any deviantart watermarks removed just post the images here.

>>63318

This is true in theory however as this whole thread shows, if they’re put in a corner and not touching any of the figure then it’s piss easy for whiny brats to crop it off because knowing it came from somewhere and giving that source credit ruins their boners. Watermarking over the image itself only became common practice because removing watermarks was an even more common practice and now people need to take more steps to make sure it stays there.

When my ex watermarked my stuff he’d write the mark in photoshop and then curve it along my figure so it wasn’t on-top but hard to remove without removing the whole background, IMO that’s the best of both worlds but nobody likes to compromise with the people they’re fapping to, they just want the models to not exist except when they’re horny.

>>63321

>>63318

(Also i did get the devils advocate bit, you’re fine. I just didn’t express that clearly)

>>63321

I don't think you understood the distinction I was making. If you care about people removing it you aren't doing it for the benefit of the viewer - you're doing it to prevent plagiarism and/or to advertise.

Personally I dislike watermarks mainly for philosophical reasons. They don't (usually) massively degrade the image quality, but it's frustrating knowing that someone intentionally made an image worse. This is especially true for artwork where someone spent days creating something beautiful only to slap an ugly watermark on it.

>>63322

That isn't a deviantart watermark. Without the ability to acquire a copy of the watermark itself (with alpha information) there's no easy way to automatically remove it. If you can find some other images with the same watermark and also find de-watermarked versions of them, it might be possible to calculate the watermark from those. You need at least two reference images - ideally one is all black except for the watermark and the other is all white except for the watermark. Using reference images with lower contrast just decreases the accuracy.

Or, as I said in >>63238 , you could remove most of it manually with free software and a bit of time.

>>63325

Actually, scratch that. I have a crazy idea.

>>63327

thank you very much!

Care to elaborate how you did that?

>>63355

The automated method is a whole bunch of math. Basically the standard alpha-blending equation is:

color = A*alpha + B*(1-alpha)

where A and B are (r,g,b) vectors and alpha is a number between 0 and 1. If you know some of those values, you can rearrange it to form a set of simultaneous equations which give you the watermark. Then you just run the equation in reverse on a target image to remove the watermark.

I can post the code and a more in-depth description of the math if you want.

But that wasn't really necessary here. The image is made up of large sections of uniform color. Just use the color picker tool to select the right color from an untainted part of the image, then use a small brush tool and a steady hand to paint over that part of the watermark.

>>56775 (OP)

It's to prevent people from using their pictures to catfish others, like >>56776 said.

>>63432

You think their egos can fit inside a mere signature?

We're not talking about some loser like Picasso here. These are important people and they deserve recognition.

On a more serious note, I can understand sticking a link to a blog/profile in the corner of the image or, ideally, in the metadata section of the image file. In fact they could even include a digital signature in the metadata which proves authenticity. As a general rule though, the size of an artists signature/watermark is inversely proportional to their skill.

>>63432

signatures are easily cropped or edited out, the whole point of the watermark is that they cannot use your picture to catfish, full stop.

>>63453

Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt the motivation has anything to do with protecting other people. At best that's an afterthought. The primary goal of watermarking is always to prevent "theft". If it were purely public-spirited benevolence, the people doing it wouldn't be as invested in defending the practice.