# Can someone remove a watermark please?



## Tyguy35 (Jan 2, 2014)

Hey, I just made my first HDR but at the moment I don't have a computer for Photomatix. My girlfriend downloaded the free trial but can't get the full version since its her school computer and doesn't want it on her computer. I can't post the image on here its to large way to large haha.
I can send it by email though. The photo is of my Tortoise Tank.
Thanks
Tyler


----------



## NedM (Jan 2, 2014)

You will need programs like Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop to remove watermarks from pictures.


----------



## weepete (Jan 2, 2014)

Nah, buy the full version if you want it. That'll get rid of the watermark and That's a poor excuse.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 2, 2014)

or find a free ware software.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 2, 2014)

Plenty of free HDR software out there that doesn't watermark an image.

That, or pay for the software instead of being a pirate.


----------



## Tyguy35 (Jan 2, 2014)

I plan on buying it. I was trying it out on her computer because I don't have one. I like the program just can't afford a computer right now. So using the trial to learn until I can afford everything. Or I'll just download the full version when she falls asleep haha. Ya I think ill do that.


----------



## KmH (Jan 2, 2014)

HDRSoft only watermarks their free _trial_ version of Photomatix. Removing their watermark would also be unethical.
The "cost" of HDRSoft's trial version is the advertising the watermark provides.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jan 3, 2014)

You do NOT have permission to remove the watermark. I strongly suspect  the terms and conditions for using the _trial _software would cover that.
Plus its not a cool thing to do.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2014)

Tyguy35 said:


> I plan on buying it. I was trying it out on her computer because I don't have one. I like the program just can't afford a computer right now. So using the trial to learn until I can afford everything. Or I'll just download the full version when she falls asleep haha. Ya I think ill do that.



No point having a digital camera without a computer

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ronlane (Jan 3, 2014)

^this + all the above.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 3, 2014)

Tyguy35 said:


> I plan on buying it. I was trying it out on her computer because I don't have one. I like the program just can't afford a computer right now. So using the trial to learn until I can afford everything. Or I'll just download the full version when she falls asleep haha. Ya I think ill do that.



The trial version *IS* the full version.  When you pay for it you get a registration code that is entered which makes the watermarks go away.


----------



## lambertpix (Jan 3, 2014)

Seems pretty similar to a client who wants to remove a photographer's watermark -- "I like the pictures you took, and I plan on buying some prints, but in the meantime, can I get rid of the watermark?"  

I love free stuff as much as the next guy, but it turns out that selling software is how these guys put food on their tables.  You tried the software, and it sounds like you like the way it works, so you've now got all the information you need to decide whether you're going to buy it or not.  Photomatix Essentials, at $39, ranks pretty high in the bang-for-your-buck category, IMO, but I agree with gsgary -- if you don't even have a computer yet, you're sort of putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 3, 2014)

SCraig said:


> Tyguy35 said:
> 
> 
> > I plan on buying it. I was trying it out on her computer because I don't have one. I like the program just can't afford a computer right now. So using the trial to learn until I can afford everything. Or I'll just download the full version when she falls asleep haha. Ya I think ill do that.
> ...



This^ 

All you have to do, is pay for the rights and they will issue you a registration code. Then you enter that code and the marks will be removed. The site provides sample bracketed photos that you can practice on instead of your own photos. It's suspicious to edit a photo with their software knowing the photo will be watermarked (which is clearly stated) and then look else where for the means to remove the mark.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

I couldn't find the license terms anywhere on their website, but I don't really see how trying to clone the watermark out (is it one large one, or a bunch of small ones?) would make you a "pirate".

I downloaded the files (but didn't feel like actually installing it) - I didn't see any license terms in there either (just data files and installation instructions)...  If it is "illegal" to clone out the watermark(s), I would think that would be one of the things they would make known.


Really though, just buy it.  I mean, cloning watermarks out is going to get old real fast...  The $40 or $100 it costs (depending on which version we're talking about) is probably worth it if you're going to use it for more than 2 or 3 pictures...


----------



## lambertpix (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> I couldn't find the license terms anywhere on their website, but I don't really see how trying to clone the watermark out (is it one large one, or a bunch of small ones?) would make you a "pirate".



It's natural for us to want to assign a degree to this sort of thing... after all, if we speed by 5mph, we're still speeding, but we don't usually consider that a big deal, and it's pretty easy to claim ignorance.  When someone buys a radar detector, though, it's pretty clear that the intent is to be able to speed -- just like intentionally removing a watermark.  We all recognize what the watermark is there for, so when you circumvent it on purpose, you're showing an above-average level of knowledge and will to defraud the owner of the watermark.

Sure, it's just a few bucks for the software, so if you want to make the case that's it's just a *little* piracy, that's 100% up to you, but I think the point is that you'd be using the software for free to do something the publisher really believes you should be paying for.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> I couldn't find the license terms anywhere on their website, but I don't really see how trying to clone the watermark out (is it one large one, or a bunch of small ones?) would make you a "pirate"............




Look for their EULA (End User License Agreement).


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't find the license terms anywhere on their website, but I don't really see how trying to clone the watermark out (is it one large one, or a bunch of small ones?) would make you a "pirate"............
> ...


I tried to.  Couldn't find it.  I didn't want to install the software just to read that...

Just my opinion (obviously, since they didn't seem to think to make it available on their website), but that's the sort of thing you should be able to read before you download and begin to install something.  Crazy, I know.
If it is on the website, it's well hidden.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

lambertpix said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't find the license terms anywhere on their website, but I don't really see how trying to clone the watermark out (is it one large one, or a bunch of small ones?) would make you a "pirate".
> ...


First of all, I'm not saying that you should pirate software - but at the same time, I don't really care if you do.  This is just a general observation (not related to this thread or any single post in it), but it seems to me that the people who are most vocal about the "evils of piracy" always end up being the ones with the most pirated crap on their computer...


Anyway.  Where I was going with that (what you quoted), was that you are using the software for it's intended purpose.  What you do with the file after that is none of their business.  If by using their software, you are agreeing that you will not alter the image using another software suite - well, then that is no software that I want to use.

edit
And that is one reason you should be able to read the EULA _BEFORE_ you download and start installing something.  If I'm not going to agree to it, knowing that up front might be nice.  I looked again on their website, and still couldn't find it.  I looked in the FAQs and in the Support section.  And at the bottom of the page, because sometimes they just stick crap like that there.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> ...... but it seems to me that the people who are most vocal about the "evils of piracy" always end up being the ones with the most pirated crap on their computer.............



And your basis for this is what?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > ...... but it seems to me that the people who are most vocal about the "evils of piracy" always end up being the ones with the most pirated crap on their computer.............
> ...



1+


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > ...... but it seems to me that the people who are most vocal about the "evils of piracy" always end up being the ones with the most pirated crap on their computer.............
> ...


Just an observation, like I said.  LOL.  Getting defensive?

I've just ran across a lot of people who in public will condemn any sort of piracy, but in private tell you where to get everything 'for free'.  Pretty much just like how the people who constantly have to tell you what a "Good Christian" they are always seem to have questionable morals.


----------



## lambertpix (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



I can help with that:  Let me google that for you



Josh66 said:


> lambertpix said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



The watermark only shows up on images created with the trial software.  The intended purpose of the *trial software* is to *try* the *software*.  Nowhere on the web site is it implied that the software is free, or shareware, or donationware, or anything of the sort.  I'm sure you've experienced time-limited trials, where you have full functionality for a period of time and then the software stops -- Adobe's trials work like this, for example.  HDRsoft's trial will run forever (pretty generous, IMO), but it puts a watermark on the processed photos because *it's a trial*.  That's just how they've chosen to limit the software so users will be properly motivated to buy a license.

Once a license is purchased, watermarks will no longer be embedded in any photos that are processed.  Furthermore, there are instructions on the website that help you remove the watermark from a previously-processed photo using a *licensed* copy of Photomatix Pro:

FAQ about HDR photography software Photomatix - Tone Mapping, HDR images creation and Exposure Fusion

Seriously -- $39 for Photomatix Essentials is a killer deal. You can't buy a decent *filter* for $39.  Maybe a lens hood.  There you go -- you can get a lens hood for less than $39. HDRsoft even lets you apply the $39 to the price of Pro later if you want:

FAQ about HDR photography software Photomatix - Tone Mapping, HDR images creation and Exposure Fusion

Oh, and yes -- I bought the software, in case you were implying anything.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Just an observation, like I said.  LOL.  Getting defensive?
> 
> I've just ran across a lot of people who in public will condemn any sort of piracy, but in private tell you where to get everything 'for free'.  Pretty much just like how the people who constantly have to tell you what a "Good Christian" they are always seem to have questionable morals.




Not getting defensive at all.

Just wondering why you would now assume my computer is dripping with pirated software.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

lambertpix said:


> I can help with that:  Let me google that for you


Thanks.  Try finding that from their main page, lol.

Now that I've read it, I don't see anything in there that would stop someone from cloning out the watermark.

Clone away.  Perfectly legal.  End of discussion.



You guys are getting way too defensive, lol.  I wasn't talking about anything I've seen in this thread.  Although some people seemed to be implying that it was illegal.


AceCo55 said:


> You do NOT have permission to remove the watermark. I strongly suspect the terms and conditions for using the _trial _software would cover that.
> Plus its not a cool thing to do.


Like that.  ^^^

First sentence, boldly stating that you do not have permission to alter it.  Second sentence, admitting that he didn't actually know whether you had permission or not.




I even said that the OP should go ahead and buy it.  If he was only going to use this software once or twice - yeah, clone that **** out.  If you're going to be using it on anything even resembling a regular basis, that would get old very fast.



EDIT
lambertpix,
The rest of your post (unquoted), I totally get and agree with.  That was never in question.  I fully understand why the watermark is there, and I would even say that it should be a very effective model.  Who would rather clone watermarks out of hundreds of images when you could just prevent them from appearing in the first place for a small fee.  A very small fee, once you factor in all that time that would otherwise be spent cloning crap out.

I would not pay $40 to process one HDR.  I'm not really that much into HDR, but that's beside the point.  If I was into it, I sure as hell wouldn't want to waste all that time cloning out watermarks when I could 'unlock' the software so easily.


My point is, cloning the watermark out does not make you a pirate.

And your example of delivering watermarked images to a client ... proofs, yes - watermark them.  Proofs only need to be good enough for me to tell if it's 'print-worthy' or not.  I personally would not pay for watermarked images (prints, or files meant to be printed by the end user) though.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



Your remarks are coming across as if those of us replying to this thread are pirating software. So I'm curious as to exactly how it is you came to your conclusions?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


I'm curious how it is you came to your conclusions since I have stated multiple times that this is not the case.


It sort of seems to me that you guys are just upset that I am "defending" the right to clone the watermarks out, which is completely legal and in no way piracy.  If you disagree, show me the part of the (very brief) EULA that you feel supports your case.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> I'm curious how it is you came to your conclusions since I have stated multiple times that this is not the case.



Same twisted logic as believing removing watermarks isn't piracy.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious how it is you came to your conclusions since I have stated multiple times that this is not the case.
> ...


I edited my post as you were replying...  (Thought I could get it in before a reply came in.)

"It sort of seems to me that you guys are just upset that I am "defending" the right to clone the watermarks out, which is completely legal and in no way piracy. If you disagree, show me the part of the (very brief) EULA that you feel supports your case."


How is it piracy?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



I'm not upset, I'm just curious as to how you came to the conclusion that I'm pirating software?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Again, refresh my memory as to when I said this.

You're reading far too much into my posts.  This is the FIFTH time I am saying it.  Rather than repeating myself yet again, I will have to assume that you're just trolling.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 3, 2014)

Here we go...

How To Stone A Person To Death


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Again, refresh my memory as to when I said this...........



As you wish.



Josh66 said:


> ...... but it seems to me  that the people who are most vocal about the "evils of piracy" always  end up being the ones with the most pirated crap on their  computer.............


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

Yes, selectively quoting posts is fun for everyone.  If you had read the rest you would have noticed the part where I mentioned that it was just a general observation and not related to this thread.

Your insistence on continually bringing it up does make me wonder though.  YOU (and Tailgunner) are the ones making this an issue.  Personally, I do NOT care if you pirate software.  All I did was make an observation that "guilty parties" tend to profess their innocence when it isn't really called for.  Kind of like you guys are doing now.  If you didn't feel that applied to you, I guess the best thing would have been to simply ignore it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Here we go...
> 
> How To Stone A Person To Death



No video?  Geez.. what a rip off.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Personally, I do NOT care if you pirate software.



Aha!  Just as we suspected.  Caught you red handed there blackbeard!

Lol.. hey, you know this selective quoting thing might be pretty fun after all.  Thanks Josh!  Rotfl


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

Arrgh.


Where's my rum?





The whole "piracy" thing is pretty much a non-issue for me.  All of the software I use is open source and free (excluding one or two games).  I just think it's funny that people who supposedly don't pirate anything get so worked up when piracy is mentioned.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 4, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Arrgh.
> 
> 
> Where's my rum?
> ...



Well I've always been a big fan of buying the stuff I need for a variety of reasons, first of course is that if no one buys the software the company goes out of business and no more development.  I've also never quite figured out why folks would run the risk of a serious viral infection or worse, I would think that pirated software would pretty much be a primary candidate for something like that - me I'd rather spend a few extra bucks so I never have to worry about it.

I can't really go the opensource route for a lot of stuff, particularly my OS.  I also use some 3d software called Poser and 3ds Max, neither of which will run on anything but windows.  You can kind of sort of get poser, the 32 bit version, limping under a couple of different versions of linux but it's far to unstable and running anything less than the 64 bit version on my machine is a waste.   So for now I'm stuck with mickeyslop I'm afraid.  And no, blender is just not an viable replacement for either, not even close.  At some point I'd love to take the graphics workstation and convert it over to linux, but I'll have to wait until wine gets a whole lot better than it is now before i can even consider it, either that or when virtualbox or vmware finally pull their heads out and allow a VM direct video card access.  Then maybe I can look at finally doing away with Windows for good, but until then I'm kinda stuck.

I have played with the Giimp a bit, but I own an older copy of photoshop and I really prefer it's interface so I'll be sticking with it for the foreseeable future.  But for now at least what I've got gets the job done well enough.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

I've always hated Wine - I could never get it to run good.  VirtualBox is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than Wine, IMO.  The only real down side is that it requires a copy of Windows (or whatever other OS you want to run).  I very rarely use it though - just don't really need Windows much at all for what I do.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jan 4, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Clone away.  Perfectly legal.  End of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know or should know what the intent of that watermark is in their trial software. The company made a conscious decision to place that watermark on each image when the software was being trialled. Again you either know that or you should.
Whether YOU think is is legal or not is immaterial to me - If you can claim that it is OK to remove a watermark from trial software without any pangs of consciousness tells me you are not a person I would like to have anything to do with ... you seem to be a person who is willing to do what you want to do regardless of the situation.
Now to find out how I can "ignore" you. Have a happy life.


----------



## jenko (Jan 4, 2014)

Stealing is stealing. There are real people behind these products who dedicate hours of time and work to create them for us. They should get paid for their efforts. 

Sounds like someone has some growing up to do.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

AceCo55 said:


> Now to find out how I can "ignore" you. Have a happy life.











Yes, I am such a child because I believe that it is not stealing to edit my own photos.  

edit
Jenko, I think if you go back and read my posts in this thread again you will find that I am not in disagreement with you.  It's just that this is simply not "stealing", or piracy.  They are YOUR photos, you can do with them what you want.  The EULA agrees with this.


AceCo55, if you must add me to your "ignore list" for calling you out, then go ahead and do it.  I guess it's easier than admitting that you were wrong.

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with cloning the watermark out.  I have said multiple times in this thread that I understand why they watermark the trial images - and even that it is an effective model to convince people to buy it.

I am done repeating myself, so in the future I will just assume that people who can't let this go are either stupid or trolls.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jan 7, 2014)

Just thought I would provide an update to this question. I contacted Photomatix Support about the watermark on the trial version. This is their position:

_"We don't have something spelled out in black and white about it, but I can touch  on it for you.

Our position about removing the watermark without buying  the software is absolutely the same as yours, and people who say otherwise are  being dishonest. I wouldn't be surprised if those people know that, too, even if  they claim otherwise.

The point of the watermark is indeed to be a limit  on the trial version of Photomatix; since it's fully functional and doesn't  expire (because we believe that people should have ample time to try out the  software before buying, and we understand that sometimes things get busy and not  everyone has time to test the software during a limited time frame), the  watermark is there to prevent people from indefinitely using the trial without  ever buying a license. As you know, after the product is registered, it doesn't  add watermarks (and it also has an option to remove them from previously  processed photos).

We may well have a case against people that do such  things, but unfortunately if we were to try to take everybody that was cheating  in some way to court, it would quickly cost us so much time and money that we  wouldn't be able to keep developing Photomatix Pro. And, the people that do  these types of things usually find it easier to find a pirated license key than  have to follow a procedure to remove the watermarks, which is even harder to  fight.

So, while the opening poster and the person that came to his  defense are not in the right, there isn't a lot we can do about it without  taking resources away from bettering our product, and we've decided to devote  our energy to our honest customers and hope that some of the others come  around."_


----------

