Wednesday, 16 November 2011


Friends, for the originals, I decided to use a watermark. It will be fair to the authors of paintings. Write your opinion here in the comments

Zombie Massacre - End Of Peace in James Ryman - Screaming Zombie
Jost Amman - Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge as Death The original is found
Insurgent purportedly in Iraq, stopped by sniper's bullet The original is found
Strikeforce - Reign Of Eternal Fear, Blind Guardian - Live in Manises, Frostmourne - Nazgul in John Howe - The Dark Tower
Two 5,000 to 6,000 year-old skeletons were found locked in an embrace near Verona The original is found
Dismembered Victim Of Jeffrey Dahmer – Crime Scene Photo The original is found


  1. I think the watermarks should be a little more discreet, for example, you could place them in the right corner of the images.
    But I don't agree with the watermarks, I think things were alright without them. I don't think we'll have any problems with copyright or with the authors, unless you have already had problems with that.
    In few words, I think that the watermarks are not very much necessary and that if they are not discreet they can spoil the originals. And it is practically a trademark of this site to offer beautiful, high-quality and clean originals. So I don't think it should lose its trademark.

  2. Thank you for your comment.
    You do not understand the idea of ​​a blog. I am getting the same cover and look for them and their original authors. I do not give the beautiful originals. Original - a means to compare covers.
    I think watermarks are needed. Two of today's posts are from the original with a watermark. It does not spoil the original, but does not get the original for the cover.

  3. I see. Sorry for the tone of the last message, didn't mean to offend you.
    I overdid the writing somehow. Thanks for your reply. Coming to think of it the watermarks are not bad at all. In most of originals they're quite discreet. ;)

  4. And I (and many other peoples as well) appreciate it. :D