The recent uptick in images stamped with Stake's watermark on social media platforms, particularly X, raises important questions about the legality and ethics of copyright and marketing practices. Stake is an online gambling platform that primarily offers cryptocurrency-based sports betting and casino gaming services.

Stake's campaign has involved overlaying its logo on a variety of posts, including vintage photos and memes, often divorced from any context relating to gambling. As this trend continues, it prompts a critical examination of whether Stake is within its rights to watermark images they do not own.

The Copyright Landscape 

In the UK, copyright law protects images (including photographs and illustrations) as artistic works, typically granting ownership rights to the creator of the work. This means that permission is required to use or reproduce someone else's image. 

Stake's practice of adding its watermark to images created by others without obtaining the necessary permissions likely contravenes these copyright principles.

Ownership of copyright usually lies with the creator unless specific employment agreements alter this dynamic. Furthermore, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Thus, unless an image has been released into the public domain or the use qualifies under specific permitted acts, any unauthorized use could infringe upon the original creator's rights.

The Role of Watermarking

A watermark—a logo, text, or signature superimposed on an image—serves multiple purposes: it can deter unauthorized use, promote the photographer's brand, and provide contact information for obtaining permissions. However, applying a watermark to images that one does not own complicates the landscape. 

Stake's use of watermarks on unrelated images may dilute their brand and might be perceived as an infringement, particularly if the original creators object to such use. While Stake's aggressive marketing strategy has attracted attention, it raises serious questions about intellectual property rights. 

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has expressed concerns about the possible appeal of gambling advertisements to younger audiences, yet the central issue remains by watermarking content they do not have rights to.

Professional creators have already voiced concerns about their work being exploited without consent. Notably, renowned football journalist Fabrizio Romano publicly challenged accounts using his likeness without authorization.

The situation illustrates a broader trend where individuals and brands may inadvertently or intentionally overlook copyright laws in the rush to capitalize on viral content. 

Social Media Backlash

Numerous people have taken to social media to complain about the watermarking. Some have also parodied the watermarking. Football pundit Mark Goldbridge, posted on X:

While Stake may argue that their use of watermarked images is a legitimate marketing tactic, the lack of permission from original creators exposes them to potential legal challenges. The ASA has indicated it will monitor this situation, noting the necessity of protecting underage audiences from exposure to gambling promotions. In turn, Stake must consider the regulatory and reputational risks associated with its current approach.

Disregarding Rights of Owners Could Trigger Legal Action  

Ultimately, the question of whether Stake is within its rights to watermark images they do not own remains complex. From a copyright standpoint, the use of third-party images without permission typically constitutes infringement.

Stake’s innovative marketing strategy, while attention-grabbing, could lead to significant legal ramifications if it continues to disregard the rights of original content creators. As the ASA and the wider community scrutinize this trend, Stake must navigate the delicate balance between promotion and compliance with copyright law.