6 replies to this topic

[Trebor]

Background

We understand that scanlators have somewhat recently started watermarking their comics using more aggressive techniques than the traditional small logo or credits page. These techniques range from the simple (plastering entire comics with watermarks) to using new techniques (such as the animated image).

We understand that these techniques are the result of other manga readers (e.g., MangaFox) putting comics up against the scanlators' wishes or violating their delay policies. Worse yet, sometimes credits/credit pages were removed. In the most extreme cases, other comic readers (e.g., MangaFox) aggressively photoshopped out scanlators' watermarks, logos, and messages.

These heavy-handed watermarks were in response to these provocations.

Batoto's policy on watermarks

However, it is important to understand Batoto's role in all of this. Batoto does not support nor oppose these watermarks, as long as they are not harmful to our site or our readers; a non-exhaustive list of examples of harmful watermarks would be flashing bright yellow images or 100 MB files.

Batoto's overriding principle is to respect scanlators. In our view, respecting scanlators means following their policies and allowing them to post up whatever comics as they wish on our site, as long as it is not harmful to our site or our readers.

It's important to reiterate that we are a neutral content hoster. We do not create any comics, we only host them. We are not affiliated with these watermarks or scanlation groups in any relevant sense. Obviously, we are affiliated with some scanlation groups because they participate in our ad share program and we may know people from these groups in other contexts, but we do not direct or encourage (or discourage) them to put in watermarks, though, of course, we encourage them to use Batoto.

However, though we are not affiliated with these watermarks, they are being uploaded to Batoto, and it would be prudent of us to give you, our readers, some general comments on them. These are general comments; any specific questions about watermarks should be directed to the group that made the comic.

Why watermarks?

This question is beyond our ability to fully and completely answer, as you will have to ask each individual scanlator why they watermark the way they do.

However, I can tell you why scanlators are choosing this particular vector of watermarks (e.g., animated gifs and PNGs). Batoto, which supports scanlators in as wide a manner as possible, allows all types of images in their uncompressed form. Other readers, in this regard, are inferior and unable to display these animated watermarks correctly. So, this incentivizes readers to read on Batoto or the scanlator's site (because it can be viewed properly) but not on other readers. The wisdom of this policy is not for us to judge: this is a mere recitation of facts.

It is important to note, however, that even on Batoto, to view some of these animated watermarks properly, you need the latest up-to-date version of your browser. Batoto only fully-supports modern, up-to-date, desktop browsers. Though we try our best to support every browser, older browsers may not support some Batoto features or, as here, features that the scanlators put in. And while we do not do anything specifically to hamper viewing on other devices, we do NOT officially support phones, tablets, PS3s, toasters, or microwaves. Though, if it works, power to them.

Animated watermarks? What are those?

Animated watermarks are animated images with watermarks on them. That is, the image moves; it is exactly the same technology as a picture of a moving lolcat. Typically the image has the watermark for less than a second, then it will disappear.

Are there technical issues I should be aware about?

Yes.

1. The watermark disappears (typically) less than one second after the image is fully loaded. If you have a slow Internet connection, your image might take a long time to load, and therefore, you will be able to see the watermark. Just wait and it should go away.

2. Some watermarks are animated gifs, which is a very old and widely accepted standard, supported by all modern browsers. Some newer animated watermarks are animated PNGs, which is a newer standard that is currently natively supported on Mozilla FireFox and Opera, but not Google Chrome. To view these properly on Chrome, you will need this Chrome Extension: https://chrome.googl...goaeamnpckdbblp

 

Edit: Opera now requires addon as well since it has adopted the Webkit engine.

APNGs are is just flat out not supported in Internet Explorer.

Batoto's policy on future threads/comments regarding watermarks

Threads/comments regarding watermarks have a high potential to turn into heated arguments regarding the scanlator's policy. Often times, the scanlators themselves weigh in and argue with users.

But from our perspective, there is not much to discuss.

Scanlators have decided to watermark their comics. We respect that decision.

In that respect, there really is not much to discuss about watermarks on Batoto.

Thus, new threads complaining about specific watermarks will be summarily closed on sight. You may direct complaints to the scanlator's website or scanlator's forums; actual problems with watermarks not displaying properly can be directed to the QA forums ("It doesn't work for me and I refuse to install a new browser," however, is not an actual problem); you may discuss watermarks generally in the general forums.

Edited by Grumpy, 27 January 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[soranokira]

I just want to add in here that you can read about Japanzai's (one of the many scanlation groups out there) policy and reasons etc. for watermarking here: http://japanzai.com/index.php?topic=1619.0 and about animated watermarks here: http://japanzai.com/index.php?topic=1725.0

[Thunder Wolf]

I would like to ask about a watermark issue not mentioned in this post.
I'm not asking a scanlator as this is not their problem, but Batoto's. They can watermark however they want, but how will Batoto regard offensive watermarks?

When the rules mention harmful watermarks, do offensive images count such as Japanzai's watermark of Jesus?

Despite the watermark disappearing, the image still flashes across the screen for a short while and can be seen by many. We have no idea of telling the religion of each reader and any religious watermark is just asking for flames from the readers. It reiterate, any religious watermark could be seen as offensive to readers of that particular religion. I doubt Batoto would allow a racist watermark, so why should a watermark mocking religion be any different?

I'm asking this because it seems to be a more complex issue than, "flashing bright yellow images or 100 MB files."

[Trebor]

When the rules mention harmful watermarks, do offensive images count such as Japanzai's watermark of Jesus?

Despite the watermark disappearing, the image still flashes across the screen for a short while and can be seen by many. We have no idea of telling the religion of each reader and any religious watermark is just asking for flames from the readers. It reiterate, any religious watermark could be seen as offensive to readers of that particular religion. I doubt Batoto would allow a racist watermark, so why should a watermark mocking religion be any different?

I'm asking this because it seems to be a more complex issue than, "flashing bright yellow images or 100 MB files."

Question presented: Does a scanlator watermark in a chapter which incorporates religious symbols qualify as a "harm" to users which will necessitate that chapter's removal from Batoto?

Short answer: No. Consistent with Batoto's principles of freedom of expression, conflicting viewpoints exposed to our users do not constitute a harm. Harm in this context is a high bar to pass in which actual or likely harm to the user or user's computer must be present.

Analysis: A scanlator using a watermark which incorporates Jesus is not a harm to our users, because this falls under the general concepts of respect for scanlator's opinions, freedom of expression, and openness, all of which are concepts which Batoto embraces.

Freedom of expression is a principle which is necessarily always at tension between the rights of those expressing an opinion and the rights of those being expressed to. Just because someone, somewhere, is offended by what one says or does does not give us cause to censor them. The concept of freedom of expression would be toothless and meaningless if we have to censor what one says just because of one person's complaint.

The idea that the mere imagery Jesus could be offensive is not a concept that Batoto can uphold.

First, the question assumes that the watermark is "mocking religion." But such interpretations are up to each individual person as to whether they are mocking or not. Moreover, if we set the precedent that "all watermarks mocking religion must be banned," we would then have to engage in time-consuming analysis of every watermark. What is mocking? What is not? Because of the philosophical concerns regarding the impossibility of clearing articulating a standard of what is or is not a mocking/offensive use of religion and the practical problem of employing enough manpower to moderate these watermarks, this argument must fall.

Secondly, there is no assertion of harm. The argument proposed tacitly admits to this: "any religious watermark could be seen as offensive." (emphasis added). This is not an assertion of clear harm. It is clear to me that some, perhaps many, do not find the watermarks to be offensive. And it is also probably true that someone, somewhere, is offended. But we cannot use such a standard with no limiting principle. Harm must be articulated before they can be redressed. Moreover, even if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a majority of users would be offended, it is not certain whether we would censor such a mark, consistent with our freedom of expression principle. See, e.g., the existence of the KKK (protected under freedom of speech even though their ideas are offensive to many). Moreover, just because religion is being mocked doesn't mean that freedom of expression stops. See, e.g., the Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy (where Danish cartoonist who published cartoons depicting Allah, against the tenets of Islam, was condemned by many practicing Muslims but widely upheld as a valid exercise in freedom of speech). This argument seems to be a roundabout way of removing Japanzai's watermarks rather than showing any real offense. Because a harm was not asserted, and even if it was, would have been trumped by freedom of expression, this argument must fall.

Finally, the restrictiveness of the position offered (to ban all watermarks with religion) is unacceptable. The idea that no watermark, ever, could incorporate religious symbols is intolerable to the idea of freedom of expression. For substantially the same reasons as point two above, this argument must fall.

Harm requires something more than mere sensibilities of some users from an image not intentionally or knowingly directed at those users. It must be actual or likely harm to the user or user's computer. The harm to users contemplated here is something that causes actual physical discomfort, such as flashing images.

It is important to note that this advisory opinion is limited only to the idea of religious symbols being used in watermarks. The question of offensive images, such as goatse or tubgirl, or religious imagery being used in a patently offensive manner, such as Jesus's face on tubgirl, being inserted into a watermark does not present itself with this question. We express no opinion about these questions until an actual case presents itself with more facts.

The harm that will effect removal of a scanlator's work is a high bar to pass. This is the reason why the examples given in the policy appears to be clear cut.

[Thunder Wolf]

Thank you for clearing that up. I was not attempting to present a case to remove the watermarks. I was simply asking for clarification, as the original post did not appear to cover that particular issue. Religion is often a touchy subject, so I was curious as to where Batoto stood regarding it.

Once again, thank you for the specifics regarding Batoto's policy.

[Ulquiorra]

Post content removed, because of the potential of starting an argument in this thread.

Ulquiorra: People do have somewhat-legitimate policy and technical concerns about watermarks. But we (Batoto) are taking this discussion off the table because we are prioritizing scanlators over these other concerns.

Edited by Trebor, 03 February 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Trebor]

Notes irony that this policy was made to prevent arguing over watermarks, yet arguing over watermarks breaks out in watermark policy thread.

Thread locked, posts deleted. Policy still effective.