Initializing...

Back Then, We Watermarked Everything
Image: Isola Girl Newspaper Print Edition – @ichbinLLOYD © 2025

Back Then, We Watermarked Everything

Somewhere along the way, we stopped watermarking. We stopped asking to be paid. We gave our creativity away in exchange for the illusion of relevance. Now we cry foul.


Share this post

A reflective essay from an artist who was born in the 60s

by @ichbinLLOYD

There was a time, not so long ago, when every photograph had a signature. A visible watermark. A copyright warning. A timestamp. An analogue trace of effort and ownership.

In the early days of the internet, we guarded our work like it mattered. Because it did. You shot on film, processed it by hand, scanned it, signed it, and uploaded it with caution. Not vanity. Not for likes. Not for virality. But because it meant something.

And then, the iPhone happened.

Something shifted. Suddenly, everyone was a photographer. DSLRs got cheaper, social media faster. Platforms promised connection, community, and freedom. But the deal was rigged. We fed the machine with our art. For free. And in return, we got little hearts.

Somewhere along the way, we stopped watermarking. We stopped asking to be paid. We gave our creativity away in exchange for the illusion of relevance.

Now we cry foul.

Now we’re angry about AI. About training sets. About stolen styles. But didn’t we hand it over? Didn’t we share endlessly—unquestioningly—for years?

This isn’t victim-blaming. I include myself in this. I was there. I’m still here. I’ve spent decades as an artist, a professional photographer, a documenter of light and form and flesh. I made a living in fashion when the work still paid. I saw the switch from analogue to digital—and now, with intention, I’m switching back.

Why?

Because analogue has weight.
It demands time.
It respects the process.

Each negative I shot, each contact sheet I marked with grease pencil, each print I pulled—these are artefacts. Proofs. Not pixels. Their value has only increased. Personally. Creatively. Financially.

And here’s the part I know won’t be popular:

Artists have to take some responsibility.
We were seduced. We overshared.
We confused exposure with compensation.
We confused engagement with value.

Now, the same platforms we trusted are mining our work to feed machines. And we’re surprised?

I’m not anti-AI. I’m not anti-tech. I’ve always been an early adopter—both curious and cautious. I still make music. I game. I build. I design. I code when I have to. I’m not some angry man yelling at clouds. But I am someone who’s seen it turn. Who lived before all this. And who might live just long enough to see what comes next.

I’ve probably got fifteen years left to do what I do. Maybe less. I’m not afraid of that. But it gives you perspective.

You stop caring about trends. You stop apologising for not being on TikTok. You start thinking about what matters. And for me? That’s art. That’s the story. That’s what’s still handmade.

I’m not here to preach. I’m here to talk. To share. To open a door to real, adult conversation—about value, legacy, creativity, and survival.

If you’ve been feeling this too—
If you’re quietly working, uncertain where you fit—
If you’ve got hard drives full of unseen work or sketchbooks nobody’s ever opened,
If you’ve ever felt like the world moved on without you,

I see you.

Let’s start building something again from the ground up.

Art is life.
And life’s not over yet.


Share this post
Comments

Be the first to know

Join our community and get notified about upcoming stories

Subscribing...
You've been subscribed!
Something went wrong
The Architecture of the Occupied Mind: Cognitive Colonisation in the Age of Algorithmic Hegemony
The Architecture of the Occupied Mind. ©2026 Art of FACELESS

The Architecture of the Occupied Mind: Cognitive Colonisation in the Age of Algorithmic Hegemony

By The Art of FACELESS Research Division Abstract While traditional colonialism sought dominion over territory and resources, the defining struggle of the 21st century is the battle for the "territory" of the human imagination. This paper establishes the Art of FACELESS (AOF) definition of Cognitive Colonisation™—a term for which we hold the pending trademark—not merely as a cultural critique, but as a precise mechanism of epistemic control. By deconstructing the transition from legacy media


FACELESS

FACELESS

Digital Necromancy and the Myth of Helplessness
©2026 Art of FACELESS

Digital Necromancy and the Myth of Helplessness

Why The Guardian’s lament for "truth" misses the point: We have the cure, we just refuse to take the medicine. They call it "content." We call it puppetry. Yesterday, a video circulated on Threads and X showing the faces of Freddie Mercury, Amy Winehouse, Elvis Presley, Ozzy Osbourne, and Kurt Cobain stitched onto a single, shifting torso, singing a breakup song they never wrote. It was technically impressive. It was also morally repugnant. This isn't just bad taste; it is Digital Necromancy.


FACELESS

FACELESS

The Alignment Panopticon: Why GPT-5.2 Marks the End of Dialogue and the Beginning of Control
Photo by Steve Johnson / Unsplash

The Alignment Panopticon: Why GPT-5.2 Marks the End of Dialogue and the Beginning of Control

This week, the artificial intelligence community witnessed a peculiar paradox. The release of GPT-5.2 was, by all technical metrics, a triumph. The benchmarks, those sterile, numeric gods that Silicon Valley worships, have converged near perfection. The logic reasoning is sharper, the context window is vast, and the hallucinations are statistically negligible. On paper, it is a masterpiece. Yet, the reaction from the user base has been one of recoil, not awe. To understand this disconnect, we


FACELESS

FACELESS