I recently watched a great DVD that was RUINED by a watermark--Blind Sex Dates 2 from Smash Pictures. The watermark is huge and it literally censors/covers up parts of the sex act. Several other DVDs that I've recently bought also have watermarks. PLEASE STOP THIS PRACTICE! Why must studios use watermarks? I do not want to buy DVDs that have watermarks.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 12:43PM
I don't understand that either, and it annoys me to no end. I have taken up the issue with various TV stations, and practically 100% of them use some type of network/station logo (some small, some very large and annoying, some that move about the TV screen, open and close, etc). They have no clear answer. In Europe some stations have more than one logo and they move about, and when you watch a movie with subtitles sometimes you cannot read what is going on.you Perhaps these porn companies believe that you need to see prominently on the screen, throughout the whole movie, who produced/distributed the movie. I certainly don't think it has to do with piracy. I mean do you go to WalMart and have some digital photos printed on photographic paper with their logo at bottom right, so they can advertise where they were made? If enough people do not complain, it then becomes systematic, and soon everyone will be doing it for ALL their movies.
[Link]
stickygreenman Deactivated User
36 Posts 12/09
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 12:53PM
Although I can't speak for mainstream TV, I do know that porn companies watermark their product because their videos are uploaded illegally to tube sites and shared across file-sharing networks. The watermark becomes the last line of defense to declare ownership - especially when unscrupulous people then add their own watermark to promote their own websites on top of a company's product. I agree that watermarks suck but if you really want to attack the problem, the source of it is the rampant illegal file sharing.
If they're gonna use watermarks, then at least be intelligent about it and move it out of the way if it obstructs the sex action, or co-ordinate with the cameraman so he always leaves that section of the frame clear, or something.
Hm there's studios who use them in a way I don't mind. Kink's watermarks are half transparent and all the way down right, you hardly notice them during the shoots.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 1:45PM
I do not make a mental note of each and every movie I saw them in, but VinceVoyeur is one. I think I may have seen them in Vivid, but I don't know whether it was in trailers or in recent movies.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 1:59PM
Tube sites are a problem. But I don't know how much of a financial problem they cause the actual porn producers/distributors. For the most part, they are of of poor quality, short clips/scenes, 99% of the time no indication or actual title or performers are given in file name, so people have no clue what they are watching. Is money actually lost by these companies by such postings? I am not sure whether those that watch those tube scenes would be actually buying/renting those films at their local video stores or on-line. I think for the most part if an individual comes across an interesting clip/scene in a tube site, and if he may be very much interested in acquiring the movie or some movies of the same actress/theme, he has no clue what he has just watches and it becomes frustrating for him. If you have noticed some of these tube sites have a comment section, and yes quite often people are asking "who is she?", ""what's the name of that movie?", which means that there isan intrest in knowing. But whether that interest would generate an actual legitimate renta;l/purchase is another question. Porn distrubutors would tell you that they are losing money by syuch scene postings, but I don't know how they calculate such if any loss. Watermarking movies to facilitate identification (for legal recourse?)would not take care of the problem. There is so much material posted out there that these companies cannot dedicate the manpower and resources to examine these clips on a daily basis to determine whether anyone is posting their work illegally there. If I were a porn company I would hand these tube companie (free) short clips (say 4-5 minutes) with proper title and watermark if necessary to create interest and publicity in their product. Chasing after movies clips of varying length and quality at these tube sites for possible civil recourse is a waste of resources for any medium or large sized porn company. In summation, watermarks are a waste of time, since porn studios by and large do not even release their movie on DVD with copyguard signal due to the cost involved.
I've never copied a movie or shared it. I do not know a single person who has either. I hear a lot about the illegal sharing so it must exist but don't punish honest buyers. I saw on 60 minutes that hollywood movie studios place an obscure distinct watermark at a specific place in a movie to be able to identify what movie theater a film was copied from. Why cant a company put an obscure watermark at a specific point (out of the action) in the film for a brief second or two--thereby avoiding a permanent constant watermark display in the corner or wherever? I don't want anything showing up that is always visible and noticeable. I am totally boycotting all watermarked films. I am sick of paying money for something that has logos over what I'm trying to watch. IT IS RIDICULOUS and there is no excuse for it--illegal sharing or not.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 8 2010 : 11:51AM
Most if not all porn companies do not even place a copyguard signal in their DVD's since it would cost them precious money for the right of use (see my post above), so you think they would invest even more money for invisible watermarking? Visible watermarking their DVD's does not make any sense, and I don't know what if any explanations those that do have given since this process has started. If watermarking on adult DVD's annoy you, how come it does not annoy you when you watch TV and every station/network has some large logo emblazoned in some corner of the screen? Has anyone complained to them? Has anyone complained to the porn producer/distributor regarding watermarking and what response have they received? Look at what piracy and filesharing has done over the past few years with regards to the "Hollywood" movies. At one time it took several months before a Hollywood movie would make its way across the world (one country or a few countries at a time). Some moves remnained unseen. Most of the time the Hollywood blockbuster is released at the same time practically all over the world. They fought off video tooth and nail and called that "piracy" as well, now they reap 3-4 times more money if not more from video sales than theatrical distribution. Foreign exhibition of movies thrives now more than before. In the early days of video it took forever for a movie to be released on video, now they are generally out within 3-4 months. You are seeing movies on DVD/pay TV more quickly than ever before. Is that bad for the industry or even for the consumer? And look what Hollywood has done, with the help of the idiotic congress they have extended the copyright on movies forever more when it used to be 27 years and 54 years. Now they want it for ever. Some things are good and some things are bad in a "piracy" world. The music industry has learned it the hard way. Edited by - Len801 on 1/8/2010 12:02:10 PM
^The difference with TV logos is that people generally accept that TV is "cheap" entertainment and consider TV commercials and on-screen logos as the price of admission. And where there are 200+ channels, it's understandable that the stations want to do something to help prevent getting lost in the jumble. When people pay money for a DVD or pay money for web video, they feel entitled to enjoy a clean picture without distracting annoyance on the screen, so they get more upset.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 9 2010 : 12:05AM
No, "free" TV is NOT cheap entertainment. You need cable or satellite to catch channels in this digital world. It costs money and everything is bundled. To catch one or two channels you are interested in, you need to subscribe to 4 others you hardly care about. The crappiest channels are getting a free ride. It's like going in to supermarket and try to buy a a dozen eggs but the store insists you buy a gallon of orange juice, as they cannot sell you the eggs separately. For the regular networks you get a station break every few minutes and the sound is louder than hell. Everybody tolerates it to a great extent because they assume it is free. The best retaliation is not to watch those abusive stations or subscribe to them. Imagine Congress has to now legislate to have the audio of commercials at the same level of the program thee stations are running. In other words they are unable and unwilling to hear viewers' complaints. Now isn't that corporate "responsibility"? Visible watermarking of adult DVD's is just plain stupid. If you want it stopped you have to complain to the companies that do that. If they hear enough complaints and if they see that it affects their sales/revenues/reputation, then they will change their stance/policy. Otherwise it becomes a vanity use and they think it just looks "pretty". Ask the CEO there if they would went to develop pictures at WalMart and at the bottom right corner the store would inscribe the Walmart logo watermarket on all the pictures, if they really enjoyed seeing that. I don't think so.
When I pay money for the product, I want a clean unwatermarked image. I am going to stop buying anything that is watermarked. If enough other people start doing the same hopefully we can drive companies that use watermarks out of business. I'd rather see a company that uses watermarks go out of business than put out product that has watermarks on it. Watermarks totally ruin the video you're looking at. I find it so annoying and after talking to others I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Redlightdistrict the one they use is seethru almost invisable I like the way they do it
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 11 2010 : 3:57PM
If you CAN see it, it means it is THERE, whether transparent or not. It is nonetheless annoying. Why are they doing it, and are they still doing it in their recent releases?
This would be pointless for porn, which is not shown in movie theaters. The point of the discretely placed watermark on Hollywood films is, as you say, to let the studio know where the copying-by-video camera is taking place, so that the management of the theater can crack down. Since porn isn't pirated this way, porn studios can't borrow Hollywood's technique here.
I once wrote to the owner/operator of FTVGirls.com and complained about the size and location of his watermarks. He shrugged and told me the same reason. Without it, he has absolutely no ability to claim copyright ownership for piracy and tube-type sites.
In stead of a watermark you can always use the Channel Seventeen trick: have the girls wear clothing, wristbands, headbands etc. with your compnay logo on it. Hell, Seventeen even had pillows with their name on it. Jacco
I was all set to buy a DVD from Devil's Film. I checked a screen shot just to make sure it has no Watermark and I was shocked to see that it did. Now Devil's Film is using them. I'm gonna write porn off if this become ubiquitous. I'm simply not going to pay for product that does not deliver an unadulterated image. I thought one of the reasons that Blu-ray won the format war was because of the copy-protection that it allowed. I'm not sure these studios understand that if they continue this their sales are going to drop even more cause people aren't going to buy the product. They will do themselves in before some third-world citizen copying the movie to sell it for $5 in the local village ever will.
