The Watermark Issue

[Sir Noel]

I know the issue of the intrusive watermarks on some scenes (way too large and abnormally far away from the bottom corner) has been acknowledged but what is the state of play with these things? We have been told that the offending scenes will be re-encoded with more discrete watermarks (as many other LP scenes have) but nothing seems to have happened on this issue, in fact since the acknowledgement more released scenes have suffered from the same issue.

I don't want to let this one die because some of the offending scenes are simply too good to let go by.

[Symbalar]

Agree 100%.C´mon guys (xxx, PC_82, Stephane(biggest pirate)) say something about this, that watermarks must to be stopped.

[PC_82]

I know the issue of the intrusive watermarks on some scenes (way too large and abnormally far away from the bottom corner) has been acknowledged but what is the state of play with these things? We have been told that the offending scenes will be re-encoded with more discrete watermarks (as many other LP scenes have) but nothing seems to have happened on this issue, in fact since the acknowledgement more released scenes have suffered from the same issue.

I don't want to let this one die because some of the offending scenes are simply too good to let go by.

cayenne scene has been corrected i will check how it can be put into the box again. as far as the rest they are pretty consistent now. if you check the latest stuff its all the same now. they asked about the corner but guys agreed a little centric to the lower right. i can put another request

[Sir Noel]

Thanks for the reply.

It wasn't just the single Cayenn scene, quite a number of scenes have the same issue. i will list you a few: #2044, 2042, 2040, 2049, 2047, 2043 (sure there are more if I checked)

I realise that you have shrunk the font down a little on some newer scenes (such as #2050) but the placement is ludicrous. the idea of a watermark is to identify your product (for a number of reasons) but to do it in a way which is not obtrusive in a way which is to the detriment of the scene. It is a massive fail on that count. The last couple of years i have, alongside LP, subscribed (at some point) to Elegant Angel, Kink, Brazzers, BangBros, JulesJordan, DDF, EvilAngel and 21 Sextury and not one of those producers places their watermark anywhere near as far from the corner as yourselves (although I find DDF's watermark a bit too large).

I appreciate the response with respect to scaling down the watermark but i would respectfully ask you to consider doing what every other pron producer regards as good practice and tucking it in to the corner. Perhaps we could also give you a definitive list of problem scenes if that would help wrt re-encoding?

[Sir Noel]

Ok,
I have done a more thorough check on the scenes i possess to see the exact state of play. There are a few recent scenes I don't have - I don't keep (or even download) every scene (such as when Ian Scott decides to fuck with only the first quarter of his cock, vibrating back and forth like he has an Hitachi wand up his arse) - but of the scenes i have, I will list the ones which have what I feel are poor watermarks. Note, i can see that three or four scenes have had watermark revisions (specifically 2042, 2046, 2068 and 1936) and have redownloaded every scene i have with the largest watermark to confirm what bracket each scene should be in.

So there are two categories.

Category 1 - Super-sized watermark too central on the screen
2047
2045
2042
2041
2040
2049
2048
These are the worst scenes in this regard, yet include some super scenes. If you do nothing else, at least shrink the watermark on these scenes

Category 2 - Watermark size approaching industry standard but too far into the screen
1893
1991
2031
1936
2051
1894
2068
2044
2046
1948
1995
2050
1949
1939
2000
2001
I respectfully ask you to re-encode these scenes with the watermark tucked into the corner (like everyone else does). The size of the watermark is ok but the positioning is such that it frequently becomes unacceptably obtrusive, obscuring the bits you want to see.. For a medium as visual as porn to have a great banner slapped across and obscuring someone's face or gaping asshole surely makes the quality material you guys produce look far less so and ruins a good product. By all means, if you feel the need, have the logo splashed a bit more centrally for the first 60 seconds of a scene, but then tuck it away - you can even reduce the transparency if the logo is in the corner thereby making the logo more visible but less intrusive at the same time: win - win!

Thanks and hoping for a positive response.

[eknbb2]

I respectfully ask you to re-encode these scenes with the watermark tucked into the corner (like everyone else does). The size of the watermark is ok but the positioning is such that it frequently becomes unacceptably obtrusive, obscuring the bits you want to see.. For a medium as visual as porn to have a great banner slapped across and obscuring someone's face or gaping asshole surely makes the quality material you guys produce look far less so and ruins a good product. By all means, if you feel the need, have the logo splashed a bit more centrally for the first 60 seconds of a scene, but then tuck it away - you can even reduce the transparency if the logo is in the corner thereby making the logo more visible but less intrusive at the same time: win - win!

Yes please, even the new, smaller ones are kinda ruining the scenes bc they are far too centered, they are in the way all the time and jump right into the viewers face! Place them in the damn corner just like every other major label does it (brazzers, 21th sextury...etc.)!

[Sir Noel]

Today's releases are baffling watermark-wise. The double anal teens scene (#2058), which i reckon is the stronger of the two scenes (they are both great though, good job guys), has a tiny watermark in the first and last minutes and nothing at all inbetween (hooray) whilst the monster gapes scene (#2003) has a massive watermark at the start and end and a medium sized one elsewhere, both diffwerent to each other and different to the watermark used for the double anal teens scene.
From a brand perspective surely you need to decide what font and style of watermark you are going to use, tuck it into the corner (or retire it after the first minute) and then stick with it. Releasing scenes with different marks in different places is surely no way to build brand identity, it is why noone else does that

.....not that i am personally complaining about the mark in #2058 you understand

[utopiaa]

Maybe they are imitating Pierre Woodman who also uses moving watermarks Maybe they are afraid someone will crop the watermark off if they put it in the corner or something.

[Sir Noel]

Maybe they are imitating Pierre Woodman who also uses moving watermarks Maybe they are afraid someone will crop the watermark off if they put it in the corner or something.

I assume the issue is watermark cropping, yes.

However, what is that really solving? I understand the thinking in a way: one of the purposes of a watermark is to at least salvage something when your material is pirated but think on this, no-one sharing material via torrents of file sharing sites is going to crop a scene, the only place it may happen would be via porn tube style sites. The problem is that anyone who felt the need to crop the scene will either simply upload another scene or blur out the watermark instead, they aren't going to still post the scene with the watermark unblurred otherwise they wouldn't have bothered cropping to begin with.

At the end of the day it boils down to legitimate customers (us) suffering yet again through piracy. Given we already have attestation, the slightly awkward pornbox system and the flashing black boxes on the odd video frame - all of which I personally have happily sucked up and accepted as necessary evils - i can't help but feel that a watermark placed so intrusively far out into the screen is a bridge too far.

On a related subject, note today scenes 2088 and 2004. Both badged as 'gonzo.com' (which I prefer anyway as 'legalporno' sounds a bit wierd and is 14 characters of screen real estate as opposed to 9!) but note that 2004 is further into the corner than 2088. Not sure what that means, if anything, but one can only hope that 2004 was encoded more recently and the watermarks are drifting slowly slowly to a more reasonable location

[Pineapples Studio]

I don't know what's going on with the watermark craziness. You're absolutely right that, ultimately, it's only hurting legitimate customers like yourselves.

[eknbb2]

Aaaaand here we go again....@Rim My Gape scene #1940. I can't help, but this "legalporno.com" watermark is really grossing me out, in my opinion it's a total gamebreaker and I will refrain from purchasing any future scenes that are spoiled by it. The "gonzo.com" one is annoying too, but at least it's only half as long, thus somehow tolerable.

I still don't get why you don't place these ugly things in the corner, just like all the other companies do (I know...i know, I'm repeating myself)....Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't mean to hurt the guys @lp (not that they'd give a fuck anyways ), since porn generally sucks these days, and anyone trying to provide decent stuff deserves to be supported, but as stated before these scenes don't work for me.

[Symbalar]

Can somebody tell me if the scene 3 On 1 of Cayenne was re-uploaded without that HUGE STUPID WATERMARK!!!???

[Sir Noel]

Afaik the super-sized watermark list is still as is on the list i posted above.

I had thought about chasing them up again to reencode these scenes but given that every new scene is being uploaded with the watermark intruding on the action (rather than in the corner like it is with every other company) I just haven't bothered. I get the feeling LP have set their stall out on this one and this is one issue they are not prepared to budge over.
I am slowly getting more and more irritated by it tbh and I find myself constantly being drawn to the bloody watermark, like sone visual dripping tap. If their material was not as uniquely good as it is right now it would be a deal breaker, it just really really cheapens the scenes imo.
Oh well.

[PC_82]

Can somebody tell me if the scene 3 On 1 of Cayenne was re-uploaded without that HUGE STUPID WATERMARK!!!???

its fixed for sure

[magizi877]

Can somebody tell me if the scene 3 On 1 of Cayenne was re-uploaded without that HUGE STUPID WATERMARK!!!???

its fixed for sure

nope

[Sir Noel]

PC_82, Magizi is right on this, I have checked and that scene still has the giant watermark.

It is a bit disappointing how long it is taking to resolve this issue. Some of the scenes with the giant watermark are amongst your very best.

It is also very very poor that we should have to keep downloading the scenes to see if such errors have been resolved: the same goes for scene #2062 with the audio issues which I am redownloading as i type to see if it has been resolved.
In very many ways things have improved around here. The fact you have this forum is great and the fact the likes of yourself, xxx, TimB and deu post (have I missed anyone?) is excellent but it seems an oversight - a bad practice, if you like - to correct things and not post to let us know. After all, you have a 'support' section so why not have a procedure whereby whoever uploads a re-encoded/repaired scene posts as soon as they have done it, rather than leaving us guessing? As it stands, every few days I am redownloading scenes to see if they have been corrected simply because those scenes that were orrected, previously, were done so without announcement. That is your bandwidth as well as my time that is being wasted and i make no apologies for that.

[Sir Noel]

Just a bit of good news for those who are fans of especially massive and obtrusive watermarks, a spot-check today has shown that scenes #2041 and #2042 (apparently the most popular of those with the super-large watermark) STILL very much have the watermark in place
I assume the same will be true of the rest of the scenes (2043, 2047, 2045, 2040, 2049, 2048)

[bundeswehr]

Maybe they are imitating Pierre Woodman who also uses moving watermarks Maybe they are afraid someone will crop the watermark off if they put it in the corner or something.

I assume the issue is watermark cropping, yes.

However, what is that really solving? I understand the thinking in a way: one of the purposes of a watermark is to at least salvage something when your material is pirated but think on this, no-one sharing material via torrents of file sharing sites is going to crop a scene, the only place it may happen would be via porn tube style sites. The problem is that anyone who felt the need to crop the scene will either simply upload another scene or blur out the watermark instead, they aren't going to still post the scene with the watermark unblurred otherwise they wouldn't have bothered cropping to begin with.

At the end of the day it boils down to legitimate customers (us) suffering yet again through piracy. Given we already have attestation, the slightly awkward pornbox system and the flashing black boxes on the odd video frame - all of which I personally have happily sucked up and accepted as necessary evils - i can't help but feel that a watermark placed so intrusively far out into the screen is a bridge too far.

On a related subject, note today scenes 2088 and 2004. Both badged as 'gonzo.com' (which I prefer anyway as 'legalporno' sounds a bit wierd and is 14 characters of screen real estate as opposed to 9!) but note that 2004 is further into the corner than 2088. Not sure what that means, if anything, but one can only hope that 2004 was encoded more recently and the watermarks are drifting slowly slowly to a more reasonable location

Maybe we also need a price increase to pay for those "improvements".

[bundeswehr]

Just a bit of good news for those who are fans of especially massive and obtrusive watermarks, a spot-check today has shown that scenes #2041 and #2042 (apparently the most popular of those with the super-large watermark) STILL very much have the watermark in place
I assume the same will be true of the rest of the scenes (2043, 2047, 2045, 2040, 2049, 2048)

I would suggest that the video should be actually a huge watermark with the real action in a small corner. Then, if you want the real video, not this "full featured preview", you can choose to pay more a random number of tickets.

Because directors need to make more money and customer satisfaction is low on the priority scale.

What a crock of shit.

[Sir Noel]

I would suggest that the video should be actually a huge watermark with the real action in a small corner.

That would be funny if it wasn't so close to what these particular scenes are actually like. Tbh i would pay a premium for a 'watermark lite' version of each scene.

[Symbalar]

Proud.Proud of The WATERMARK.

[Sir Noel]

Another test on a couple of the scenes with the gargantuan watermark that we were promised would be sorted.

Downloaded scenes number 2042 and 2047, just as a couple of testers, and lo and behold absolutely nothing has changed, still we have the giant watermark there.

[gapelover]

Don't worry, all will be fixed next year

[Sir Noel]

Don't worry, all will be fixed next year

Ooh, don't joke, it might just be too close to the truth!


seriously, bit of an update. At least as far as streaming files there has been some movement (or the changes have shown for streaming files but not in my pornbox).

So here are the super large watermark files again:
2040 - No change
2041 - Watermark now reduced
2042 - Watermark now reduced
2043 - No change
2045 - Watermark now reduced
2047 - No change
2048 - No change
2049 - No change

I will check the pornbox files soon to see if the they have updated along with the streaming versions
2048
2043