Intrusive watermarks as flag reason

Regarding two flags from today, I wanted to ask why these posts were considered as having intrusive watermarks.
post #2127462 and post #2084663.
One time, the watermark doesn't block the focus of the image (that one with Cammy), and the other time it's somewhere in the corner.
Since "intrusive" is vague, and before this becomes another flagging wave, I wanted to ask what this "intrusive" should mean.
I think as long as it's not blocking something in the focus of the image, then I'm fine with having a Patreon watermark (for example). Other examples would be posts where the transparent DeviantArt watermark is visible and they are mostly in the center of the image.

Provence said:

Regarding two flags from today, I wanted to ask why these posts were considered as having intrusive watermarks.
post #2127462 and post #2084663.
One time, the watermark doesn't block the focus of the image (that one with Cammy), and the other time it's somewhere in the corner.
Since "intrusive" is vague, and before this becomes another flagging wave, I wanted to ask what this "intrusive" should mean.
I think as long as it's not blocking something in the focus of the image, then I'm fine with having a Patreon watermark (for example). Other examples would be posts where the transparent DeviantArt watermark is visible and they are mostly in the center of the image.

because the flagger's probably an asshole who hates watermarks, I guess.

Provence said:

Other examples would be posts where the transparent DeviantArt watermark is visible and they are mostly in the center of the image.

So when a semitransparent Deviantart logo is centered over a focal point of an image is that not flaggable? An artist could also plaster their image with logos like a NASCAR car and this would seem excessive no matter how great the picture is.

The rule against watermarks was originally intended only for images crossposted from sites like aerisdies.net that would recompress images and add their own watermarks. That was a problem maybe ten years ago, but not now. Trying to apply this rule to watermarks added by the artist is against the original intention of the rule.

It's an artist's prerogative to watermark their work however they want. It's the price we pay for being allowed to rehost other people's content. Flagging something for being watermarked almost implies that the watermark should be photoshopped out or something, which is the opposite of what we want.

sweetpeɐ said:

An artist could also plaster their image with logos like a NASCAR car and this would seem excessive no matter how great the picture is.

Logical fallacy: reductio ad absurdum

Art with highly intrusive watermarks has very little chance of being approved in the first place.
Additionally, the original point of the watermark tag was to help identify & remove posts with THIRD-PARTY watermarks, typically from hentai sites.

Kikimaru said:

Logical fallacy: reductio ad absurdum

Art with highly intrusive watermarks has very little chance of being approved in the first place.
Additionally, the original point of the watermark tag was to help identify & remove posts with THIRD-PARTY watermarks, typically from hentai sites.

Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argumentation, not a logical fallacy. At least get that right. Also great job taking a half-serious remark as completely seriously. It's not inconceivable that an artist can go too far in their watermarks so that the image's quality is degraded, that's not an appeal to an extreme. I will look for an example.

And content can be active on this site without being approved, an unrestricted uploader can upload that image and then it gets flagged. That's not even the present usage of the watermark tag, so the original intent is immaterial. Web address for instance implies watermark.

evazion said:

The rule against watermarks was originally intended only for images crossposted from sites like aerisdies.net that would recompress images and add their own watermarks. That was a problem maybe ten years ago, but not now. Trying to apply this rule to watermarks added by the artist is against the original intention of the rule.

It's an artist's prerogative to watermark their work however they want. It's the price we pay for being allowed to rehost other people's content. Flagging something for being watermarked almost implies that the watermark should be photoshopped out or something, which is the opposite of what we want.

Oh, that's interesting. Then I guess that this section should be removed (or if there really should be something to it more fleshed out). Because I don't really want to deal with this as a flag reason.

Provence said:

Oh, that's interesting. Then I guess that this section should be removed (or if there really should be something to it more fleshed out). Because I don't really want to deal with this as a flag reason.

There's nothing wrong with the rule as stated in the Terms of Service; some people are simply misusing it as an excuse to flag images that aren't breaking any rules. If an image was watermarked by the original artist, that alone isn't enough to justify flagging.

iridescent_slime said:

There's nothing wrong with the rule as stated in the Terms of Service; some people are simply misusing it as an excuse to flag images that aren't breaking any rules. If an image was watermarked by the original artist, that alone isn't enough to justify flagging.

I might update the help:flag_notice with that piece of information.