We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
Damnit, I thought I had something good to post finally.
I don't see the problem. It's from a company called "Dragon Lawyers". If it was idk "Flower Lawyers" they could put a flower with a tie or something. What is it with those snowflakes not being able to handle a decent watermark. It's not like it's somehow offensive.
NGL, I think it looks really unprofessional. Imagine “flower lawyers” putting a tulip in a cartoon suit and giving it a menacing expression, it would look just as dumb. Likewise, a dragon could make for a much classier design if approached in a different way.
Exactly. This isn't some little iconic flourish in the corner, footer, or the header. There's also some general rule of thumb with watermarks being flagrantly disregarded (keep it simple and monochromatic so it doesn't impact content legibility).
And even if I personally didn't have a problem with it, I would seriously question the competency of any law firm that mis-read their audience so dramatically. I can't imagine many courts looking at that and not having at least an immediate knee jerk reaction of "The hell is this? Are they fucking with us? Is this a joke?" which is an absurdly poor opener to your case as a lawyer.
If some firm got a headshot of the lawyer handling the case scowling and used that as the background of every page in their document they'd be laughed out of court. Just because "dragons are cool" or something doesn't make this any less silly.
Edit: The dragon icon in the footer is perfect if they wanted some visual flair to set them apart, and it's a relatively simple monochromatic design. It just makes it even more absurd that they didn't just use that and instead went for this detailed and visually busy picture.
I'm going to take a flying leap and assume you've never come close to court proceedings.
No serious law firm is doing full page multicolored graphics as watermarks. Flower Lawyers doing what you've described would get a similar response. If this was a picture of the lawyer for the case scowling instead they'd get laughed out of court.
I assume you would only do that on like a sample document for a client or a draft, specifically so it won't be used in an actual court.
What you didn't see was, on the reverse side of these documents, the dragon lawyer has no pants on. He's full ass-out. Just straight-up Donald Duck'ing it.
It has to be easily printable* for judges/lawyers that want a hard copy.
*Easily printable (and still legible) on 30 year old government printers.
After it's been photocopied fifty times.
I saw tons of billboards in southwest Tennessee for a law firm called "Lion Law" and all their billboards had pictures of animals and some kind of play on words, like a picture of a snake and the caption was something like "divorce that snake in the grass today!"
And I was just like "damn, that's kinda clever."
My only issue here is that it makes the text hard to read
My only issue with my new car is that it doesn't start.
"Federal Judge Strikes Down Rule of Cool."
It’s not even cool. It’s cringe af.
Proof that a degrees don’t determine intelligence.
Pretending this country has any professionalism whatsoever. Considering who is president and the shitty behavior of most politicians ... get fucked.
the judge: "Bad Dragon!"
(the dragons all laughed.)
how original, never heard that one before
Honestly pretty sick dragon. Great PR. But yeah definitely they should use some sort of cryptographic signature, not (on its own at least) an image watermark like this haha
Judge should be fired. Does the dragon somehow change the words on the page? If the watermarks affects the ability for screen readers, then fine. Otherwise, the judge is clearly unable to form an unbiased opinion and is willing to allow something irrelevant like appearance bias their cases.
makes the text hard to read but otherwise I think it's fine
To be fair, making text hard to read somewhat defeats the entire purpose of text.
Yeah, but its only to the point of requiring an increase in transparency, not complete removal.
And this is in colour, imagine it in grey scale when copies are made for court.
