At least they flipped it horizontally



  • Hot-linked image:

    [missing image]

    Enhanced screenshot:

    [missing image]

     

    In their defense, most people won't even notice or care. Except iStockPhoto, if they're not into free publicity.



  •  As an additional WTF, if you goto iStockPhoto's website, you get this:




  •  But wait! There's more!

    http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/



  •  Hey.. that place is on my way  to work.. about a 2 miles from my house, ha.

     



  •  @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

     But wait! There's more!

    http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/

    I think you found my source's source.

    Anyway, I'm done posting minor wtfs for the next time being.



  •  Watermarking something with a translucent version of your logo isn't particularly useful against an insurgency five minutes with photoshop.

     



  • I can still see it.



  •  As much as that is true, it seems like people still prefer copy + paste, in which case, watermarking in this fashion works :)



  • I always assumed that the iStockPhoto mess in the picture was just for samples, and that if you paid for the picture they would send you a digital image without the crud in it. If that's t rue, then this is just visible proof that Axelrod did not pay iStockPhoto for the picture. Could be legal trouble for Axelrod.

     



  • @AndyCanfield said:

    I always assumed that the iStockPhoto mess in the picture was just for samples, and that if you paid for the picture they would send you a digital image without the crud in it. If that's t rue, then this is just visible proof that Axelrod did not pay iStockPhoto for the picture. Could be legal trouble for Axelrod.

     

    Not necessarily, it might just as well be possible that they bought the image properly, but that an overworked, undercaffeinated designer pulled up the wrong source file without noticing when compositing that ad in a rush job...



  • @Anonymouse said:

    Not necessarily, it might just as well be possible that they bought the image properly, but that an overworked, undercaffeinated designer pulled up the wrong source file without noticing when compositing that ad in a rush job...

    You mean like what happened to the Okami Wii cover art?



  • @Anonymouse said:

    I always assumed that the iStockPhoto mess in the picture was just for samples, and that if you paid for the picture they would send you a digital image without the crud in it. If that's t rue, then this is just visible proof that Axelrod did not pay iStockPhoto for the picture. Could be legal trouble for Axelrod.
    Exactly.@Anonymouse said:
    Not necessarily, it might just as well be possible that they bought the image properly, but that an overworked, undercaffeinated designer pulled up the wrong source file without noticing when compositing that ad in a rush job...
    I do not consider this likely. 

     



  •  More likely that someone went looking for a tyre image, found that one, and then "Ohh.... Nice.... copy, paste".



  • @Anonymouse said:

    @AndyCanfield said:

    I always assumed that the iStockPhoto mess in the picture was just for samples, and that if you paid for the picture they would send you a digital image without the crud in it. If that's t rue, then this is just visible proof that Axelrod did not pay iStockPhoto for the picture. Could be legal trouble for Axelrod.

     

    Not necessarily, it might just as well be possible that they bought the image properly, but that an overworked, undercaffeinated designer pulled up the wrong source file without noticing when compositing that ad in a rush job...

    Another possibility: the ad was made in parallel to purchasing the image, then they didn't want to fix the ad when they finally had the rights for the unmarked version - especially since they'd have needed to flip the image again.



  • @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

     But wait! There's more!

    http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/

     

     

    Thank you for giving me something new to waste my time at work on. The Adobe InDesign one is priceless.



  • @tgape said:

    Another possibility: the ad was made in parallel to purchasing the image, then they didn't want to fix the ad when they finally had the rights for the unmarked version - especially since they'd have needed to flip the image again.
    So, chronic laziness.  I'll buy it.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.