Using watermarked pictures without paying is actually illegal yet i am fully on board and welcome this behavior.
Digital goods are infinite and therefor should be free, physical resources to survive are expensive enough as they are.
The only reason i know this is spiffing brit had to buy the stockphoto picture he was using and gave them his own watermark to stay legal.
damn i just googled the legality and it seems you're right. i thought the watermarked versions would be fine to use since it's advertising the site... i guess i hope for "fair use"
I would argue that adding your own edit to a stock image would be considered a "parody" of the original, therefore legal to use.
The parody argument might actually hold up.
Using watermarked pictures without paying is actually illegal yet i am fully on board and welcome this behavior.
Digital goods are infinite and therefor should be free, physical resources to survive are expensive enough as they are.
The only reason i know this is spiffing brit had to buy the stockphoto picture he was using and gave them his own watermark to stay legal.
damn i just googled the legality and it seems you're right. i thought the watermarked versions would be fine to use since it's advertising the site... i guess i hope for "fair use"
I would argue that adding your own edit to a stock image would be considered a "parody" of the original, therefore legal to use.
The parody argument might actually hold up.