8 comments

[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 39.1 ms ] thread
Seems like watermarks that can be removed by turning off javascript in your browser wouldn't be too useful. (Unless you ran it on the server side? node.js/jsdom DOES run jQuery)

Whats the use case for this if not to prevent users from getting at the original un-watermarked image?

EDIT: I just saw the QR-Code example. Overlaying images on other images might be pretty useful, I was just focusing on the 'watermark' aspect.

I'm having a hard time not calling this project stupid, because it is one the most moot things I've ever seen. Are you seriously generating watermarks on the client? What's the purpose of the watermark, then?

Open Firebug (or, ostensibly, disable javascript) and bam, all your images are ripe to steal, watermark-free.

This took me all of two seconds:

http://www.patrick-wied.at/static/watermarkjs/jq/img/test1.j...

Watermarking is not only about image protection. You could also place website identifiers in the images. If you need a strong image protection library where you can be sure that noone is able to "steal" the original images, then I wouldn't recommend the plugin ;)
I'm sorry, but it really is only about rights declaration where needed. The only other useful image task is image attribution, but that needs to be done with text and not a rubber stamp.
What is this for, then? It doesn't produce the watermarked image if you right click the image and save it, so I don't know how it would help...

Sorry to shit on your work like that, by the way, I can't explain why this bothers me, but it does :P

Did you look at the right click saved image? because it should contain the watermark, if it's applied on the website, it's not a serverside image anymore, it's a dataURL and therefore has to contain it when you save it. -- It's okay ;D
Oh, yes, you're right about that! That does make it more useful, now people who casually save your images to look at later know which website it was from.
Is this the most pointless jquery plugin ever created?