I always thought that they had planned all along to have a very large watermark so that when they make it smaller, many people will think that a compromise has been reached and accept the smaller watermark.

It will be interesting to see if the complaints keep up (they will with me, but what about the general public).

I understand now why the networks often put watermarks - very annoyingly in the 4:3 area - right in prime viewing for a widescreen TV.

They must basically have one bit of material with watermark added and transmit that for analog and convert the same for transmission for digital ?

I can confirm this, actually Foxtel readily publicise this feature of the digital service. Also, the analogue service has a big "2" appear on screen when you change to ABC, so it is not just digital viewers who know what channel we are watching.

What time is this Sunday program on?

Playing around with it is not good enough. Accept no compromise. Time to renew your complaints that no watermark is acceptable. Never ever.

It's our ABC.

I am not too sure why you are perving at at watermark ... anyway, is this close?

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/3173/abc169watermark0wi.png

(PNG format should be fine I think).

Now all TEN have to do is do wat ABC have done aswell as 7 is to put their watermark in the 16:9 area!!!!

There's a book everyone should read (certainly many a PR practitioner will have) called "Influence: Science and Practice" by Robert Cialdini. He calls what you're referring to the "rejection then retreat" technique. Another way of putting it might be "how to get people to accept something they would otherwise have rejected (and perhaps even thank you for it)".

(Sheds a tear) I don't feel like killing anymore.

In other words, rage is BUG FREE!

- Miles.

(With apologies to Montgomery Burns.)

Well, I don't know about perving at a watermark. I can think of better things to perve at!

Anyway, that white background capture looks good. Will dump it into X-Logo and see how it works. Another opportunity comes up on Thursday when the end credits of Catalyst run on a white background.

It will no doubt get moved and reshaped again, can't have it half on analogue 4:3 half chopped, looks very unprofessional. It is still just as if not more annoying seeing the half choped-off smudge on the far right. May as well get rid of the damn thing altogether if the intention is to hide it on analogue 4:3 transmission by the current move to the very far right on the 16:9 transmission. It is arguably not even inside the 16:9 safe area now, so why have it then Aunty ABC? So after a week it is half gone, who knows what will happen next week? What should occur is that the FOXTEL version gets bugged/watermarked and FTA version is left untouched with no bug/watermark. But that is way too logical, with the words logical and television not working too well if put into the same sentence.

ct

This is the case for now for rage, technical reasons are preventing it at the moment, and hopefully for good, from what I hear from the inside of the Ultimo Bunker.

By the way, the correct way to mention rage, is as 'rage' and not 'Rage'. The ABC do not own the 'Rage' trademark with the capital 'R' as such.

ct

I use Remote Area Broadcast Service (RABS) digital satellite free-to-air service. I receive Impaja (Alice Springs) which has a quite large and ugly watermark in top left corner 4:3 safe area; Seven Central (Townsville) which has logo in top right corner, often small and on edge of screen, sometimes larger; SBS has no logo of it's own except when a 'scoop' type news/current affairs item is on.

I receive ABC TV from all areas, i.e. ABCTV WA, NT, SA, QLD, SE-OZ (NSW/VIC/TAS). Last night (Fri 11 Feb) I could not see any ABC watermark on my 4:3 TV set on any of the ABC channels, however the ABC kids logo was there that morning. This morning I have checked rage on all channels and no watermark there either. (Having all of the regional stations lets me check all timezones in one quick flick 7:40AM, 9:10AM, 9:40AM, 10:10AM and 10:40AM equivalent).

I voiced my utter disaproval of the watermark on the ABC webiste, to ABC local radio (612 Brisbane), and also directly to the ABC advisory board and also passed on my letter to the Friends of the ABC.

If we all keep up the pressure they might just drop it altogether.

There's no watermark on Rage and the standard watermark is currently in the 16:9 only area that's why you didn't see it.
See: http://img233.exs.cx/img233/3125/wmabc3jh.jpg

I presume this is something to do with the ARCing involved in the rage broadcast, or is it the presentation gear that they are using? It would be wonderful, even if everything else in the world was watermarked, for rage to be bug-free.

I've edited my earlier posts to reflect the appropriate use of rage.

- Miles.

The Sunday Program on Melbourne's 774 is on from 10am to noon.

I hope someone suggests to them that the extra large watermark was just a ploy to make us accept (and even thank them) for something that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Up to the top right it goes:
http://img216.exs.cx/img216/3584/topright0ef.jpg

You mean like when the government says "we have to raise taxes 20%".
Everyone complains, so they only raise them 10%.
We all feel better, because our protest worked and the government listened to us.
Then you find out the original plan was only to raise them 5%.

I'm a cynic I know. Or is that sceptic? I always get them confused.
And I'll see if I can find that book. Sound very interesting.

Now it is back down the bottom right and cut off my my TV (fine on the PC of course). There was also none during a 4:3 show earlier... Come on ABC, work it out on a closed system before taking it live.

I agree!

It was there, but //really// faint, I had to jam up the brightness to see that it was still there.

Yes it is very hard to notice in some parts, others its right there.

I am happy with it.

http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&ima...eningaus6hh.jpg

BTW is it just me or is Imageshack not as cool as it used to be?

why is the bill on SD ch2 so pixellated ? - sort off even pixels flashing

is it because of the watermark.

all other channels are fine - abc quality is usually supreme and I've raved about it in the past

I haven't noticed any pixelation.

hmmm, No, don't work it out at all, just DON'T DO IT.


As for the issue of doing one thing big and large, so that you can get want you really wanted all along, well, thats been going on for ages.

For example, the looney toons animators would put in gags that were just so over the top, they knew they would be rejected. Of course that ment that the ones they really wanted, got in the cartoon. If they had only put in those to start with, then they too would have been cut and none of it would have been funny.

So yes, it is a very cynicial view, but it happens all the time, I have no doubt that it was at least on someone's mind at the ABC, "The Watermark Paper - top secret: your eyes only"

doctor who is a 4.3 format ? since it was made before the 16.9 shows and it has the abc watermark ?

cheers

OK parki is on and its fine - must have been just this bill episode.

I noticed the bill the other night looked really bad, like a really compressed jpeg image

Like this you mean?

http://img213.exs.cx/img213/5743/snapshotj00434kv.jpg

yep spot on - very grainy...

wonder whats the go here.

and why only the bill. - it used to be pretty good.

I'm glad you took a screen shot, I was kicking myself I didn't.

Kenneth I'm wondering why you said you saw no pixelation or did you see the same as in datvman's post ?

dattvman you in melb? - maybe this is a melb thing.

i was watching at home with braithwaites

i didnt have it in 16:9 mode as abc changed format as its always widescreen todays ep was 4:3.

http://img227.exs.cx/img227/6237/pic0006xa.jpg

and the bill b4 parkinson was very grainy. so was at home with braithwaites.

btw on anlouge abc cuz they show widescreen shows in 14:9 u can see bit of logo:P

des I noticed this too

what the hell is going on

by the way was watching the talented mr ripley on 9, amazingly the ch9 logo was in the 4:3 area and very subtle on the SD ch9. On the ch90 HD channel the ch9 logo(not the HD logo - just the normal ch9 one) was bold and stuck out like dogs.... interestingly though it was located in the 16:9 part in the bottom right corner.

hope ch2 doesn't start doing anything like this !

And anyone notice when u set ur set top to 4:3 that its bit to zoomed in.

on normal 4:3 shows u can see the say 7 - thats so raven

and rage

but if its a widescreen show or music video its like half screen cut out

samples:

4:3 on 4:3 screen option
http://img209.exs.cx/img209/61/snagit8gn.jpg


a widescreen program on 7 on 4:3 screen option. 10 and 9 r fine nothing zoomed up as there logos r in right area. but even though 7 im happy with 4:3 option as u dont see the 7 digital logo.
http://img234.exs.cx/img234/5195/78xd.jpg


and heres last week at home with braithwaites very grainyish pixelish
http://img234.exs.cx/img234/7455/abc9ff.jpg

Copyright is a big legal issue for FTA.

C.M

Well, I've rung the ABC earlier tonight for the sixth time this week and this time a guy answered who sounded quite prepared for my complaint. He read out a management statement (he actually said that) which cited copyright protection and following other network's lead. He also said it was policy now to have a watermark. I told him that's very nice but policies can be changed. I also told him that following the commercial networks on policy is not appropriate for a publicly-owned Network. He was pretty abrasive and sounded like he was picking a fight but I avoided an argument and said that I will take the matter further.

The copyright aspect is ridiculous because:

1. Copyright is automatic. Every show is already protected. Duh. http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G025.pdf

2. The ABC does not own copyright on every show they broadcast so it would make more sense to see BBC, Granada, PBS, HBO, etc... as well

3. Why have they taken over 5 years to 'protect copyright' if that's what the 7 Network did in June 1999?

I'm currently about to send off my first snail mail, after the phone calls and the emails (no response) and the letters to the editors etc.

To add my two cents in as a bit of an insider, as I currently work as an editor for (gasp) a commercial network - in fact have done for years. But I have done work for every single network, and I usually watch the ABC at home, and I find it highly ironic that you can get a final tape knocked back for really trivial technical reasons, but plastering logos and compressing the crap out of content down from 270 Mb/s (SDI standard used on Digital Betacam) to sometimes single digits is OK.

Does anyone find it ironic that the ABC showed 'Outfoxed' only a couple of weeks ago, and now 'Everyone's ABC' changes their policy as a result of an agreement with Foxtel?!

If Foxtel want the watermark then there's an easy solution - buy a box for them and permanently apply it to their pay-tv content and leave free-to-air where it is. These boxes exist - I've seen them. You load a graphic file off a floppy and there it is. Adjust opacity. Voila. If the ABC cry poor, I'm sure you could get the following to happen:

Raise the money by getting a few thousand ABC viewers to give a small donation (heck it's cheaper than pay-tv _and_ you only have to pay once, not monthly),

then if anything is left over

Send flowers to the poor receptionists at the ABC whose fault this idiocy is not

then if anything is left over

Send ABC logo stickers to management to put on the TV's in their cloistered offices

then if anything is left over

Send it to World Vision for the tsunami appeal


Like others here, I am also very keen to talk to the ABC advisory people...

Toasted.

well abc need to fix there logo and stop changing it every day and how bout moving it from edge of the screen to bit more further like tens logo.

Just to add a qualification to the copyright thing...

I can understand logos on live sport and scoop news stories, because it has a reasonable risk of re-broadcast, but on other content is serves no legitimate purpose. I can't bear the thought of watching immaculately filmed pictures in some wildlife documentary compromised by a logo over the top of it. If you knew how much trouble some cameramen go to...

What next? Museum logos on works of art? This sunset brought to you by Coke? Shall models on a catwalk start wearing name tags? (Actually, if it were their phone numbers....)

Toasted.

er no Ten's is hideous and makes everything unwatchable.

lucky ten dont make it colour!

Yup, I'm sure it is. In fact I think I read in the paper how copyright holders lost billions in 2004 due to illegal copies (and that didn't include the Internet). So I assume that means copies sold at markets, corner pub, etc, etc.

Hence, while it may be a big legal issue, I think its safe to say that watermarks have no affect on stopping it. They just kid themselves into thinking it does.

I'm trying to work out how to watermark my posts now so that everything i type will have andy_d_75 over it not just for this forum but for all my stuff like letters, email, photographs, what i might do is create a pair of glasses for myself that has a watermark in the bottom right corner of each lens, and send it out free to all those who view my stuff, or better yet sell it for a dollar extra with a happy meal at maccas

copyright my ass.

I'm sure its breach of copyright to disfigure someones masterpiece that they spent hours perfecting by putting a dirty big logo on top of it.

And yes I'm sure abc does not own copyright on most of what they broadcast.

Looks like public parks are next.

Previously I suggested one way in which watermarking would directly reduce copying, but I don't think this is the point of it. To the extent that it's related to copyright, I believe the purpose is asserting the idea of copyright in an age where it's worshipped by the powers that be, but being undermined by the masses engaging in open and widespread infringement on the 'net. In this environment, a watermark is a way of suggesting "we rightfully own this property", just one small part of the public's re-education.

For copyright infringement issues, all images can be watermaked with no visible mark. This is somthing I think the art world uses now for publication. IBM developed it. So if its a pure copyright issue why do we see the damn thing?

I guarantee you, if I made a show for broadcast on the ABC, I would much rather have no watermark on my pictures (on any basis, including copyright). As a viewer, I certainly don't want it. It's very distracting on pictures that would otherwise look fabulous.

So who does this policy work for? Management alone.

This issue is not going to go away. Accept no inferior product. It's 'Everybody's ABC' (as they like to remind us) and I'm a shareholder who does not want it smaller, or less opaque, or moved more to the corner. I want it completely gone. After over 20 years of not hearing from me about anything, the ABC have already heard from me over 10 times this week. That alone should tell them something.

I echo what others have written - write (pref snail mail), email, phone, fax, etc. and get anyone you know who would care about this issue to drop them a quick line. It will take a few minutes at most.

Here are a few things to know when you do:

Copyright is automatic and every show is already protected and the ABC don't own most of it.

Program-makers do not want it, so the ABC are not serving their interests.

Following commercial networks is no good precedent for a public broadcaster to formulate policy affecting every frame of on-air content.

Making an agreement with a commercial company that changes on-air content of every show is unacceptable for a public broadcaster.

If it was so important to protect copyright in this manner, why haven't SBS done it? Why did the ABC take over 5 years to follow the 7 Network?

It detracts from enjoyment of their otherwise excellent content.

It sometimes covers graphics and makes that content difficult to read.

It burns into some TV sets.

Some TV stations internationally have had to remove the watermark because of viewer complaints. It might be standard practice to try to use it, but it is not universally accepted. Basically, TV management hope they will get away with it - and in many cases they have - but that's not what will happen here.

You do not want it smaller, more transparent or moved closer to a corner - you want it gone. You are aware that the ABC could reduce complaints this way.

You are aware of the fact that the ABC could reduce complaints and make the issue less of a problem for them by moving it out of analog (4:3) space and only on digital (16:9) space. Waiting for us all when they switch analog off and complaints will not work because it will have 'been there for years'.

It's 'Everybody's ABC'. You pay taxes and some of that goes to the ABC.

You do not appreciate the ABC management wasting money on an issue that clearly a majority of program-makers and viewers do not want. Removing the watermark immediately is the only response that upholds the integrity of the decision-makers and does not call into question how the ABC are spending their budget.

You are prepared to talk to your federal member about it.

------
I realize mentioning the budget issue is a sensitive thing as we really want more money from the government for the ABC, not less. But management in any organisation will never fail to react if money becomes even a potential issue. Personally I would go so far to say that I would prefer no watermark and less shows, even if affects my work options.

Remember, it's our ABC, not just theirs.

Hi all,

Peter Clarke on the Sunday Show (ABC local radio, 774 Melbourne, 10am Sunday) has just done watermarks.

He spoke very well against them. He said that he had just upgraded to digital and said how much more annoying the watermarks are with a widescreen picture. He thought it was vandalizing the picture, and asked what is next, NGV stickers on all the art work at the gallery?

It was very noteworthy that someone responsible for watermarking on the ABC was “not available”.

He had two guests. The first was Graham Hill from Channel 7. Graham spoke about the watermark in terms of “permanent branding” and as a marketing exercise. This was clearly the MAJOR reason for sevens watermark.

His second guest was Chris Winter who is the programming manager for the new ABC 2 channel. Chris confirmed that the new channel would be watermarked.

There were some calls from the public. The first lady was mainly mad at channel 7. One lady had just upgraded (to digital TV or Foxtel was not clear), and she said she liked the watermark because she never knew which channel she was on.

There were a few other negative watermark callers, concluding with Yours Truly. (My first ever call to talk on air). I pointed out how it may be appropriate for Packer to brand his Channel 9, but that it was our ABC and branding was not appropriate. I also pointed out that on digital you can hit a button and get all the program information.

As I suspected would be the case, just as Peter started to say “thank-you Michael” the call was hung up (giving a clean break to my call and ensuring that he can easily move on with the program).

The IMPORTANT lesson learnt from the Sunday Show is that watermarking is mainly about BRANDING and MARKETING. All the other reasons seem secondary, and just muddy the discussion.

There is now a clear commerical reason why the commercial channels decided to use watermarks -it is easy to accept that the commercial channels choose to push branding over a pure picture.

But WTF is the ABC doing pushing its brand down our throats?

What is good about Branding being the main reason for a watermark is that it is easy to argue that such branding is inappropriate for OUR ABC.

PS Did anyone hear me? Did I come across OK?

Think for a moment there. Ten could have chosen to reverse the image, so it was a big opaque circle with the 'ten' letters cut out of it. The thin circle outline and lettering they are using are far less intrusive than that would have been.

if it bothers you that much youi better talk to yahoo and get them to correct there tv guide,
why does it matter,
if i spell it "Rage" you all know what im talking about.

It'd be nice if it was more transparent - and in the 16:9 safe bottom right hand corner.

no watermark on ABC HD - not that I have seen anyway. Though it will most likely change - hope not

No argument there.