Watermarks are the annoying result of people stealing pictures—they're ugly, distracting and cheapen the art of photography. But it's a necessary evil! Or is it? Kip Praslowicz poked fun at the ugly watermarks ruining pictures these days by plastering them over famous photos. It's not a good look.
Music publishers are none too pleased with Amazon's decision to launch a music locker service where anyone can store up to 5GB of MP3s and stream them back over any internet-connected computer or Amazon's Cloud Player Android app, without a cent going either to Amazon or copyright holders.
The Watermarks Project, going on this week in Bristol, England, is using projectors in a pretty interesting way. Artists are superimposing plausible high-tide lines onto buildings, demonstrating life should the Greenland ice cap melt.
Amazon.com's new MP3 store watermarks its MP3s, but only with information stating where the songs were purchased, not who did the purchasing, according to the online uberstore. That's the good news. The bad news is that this issue has inspired me to ramble about the stupidity of the whole idea of watermarking tracks…