stockphotography

Often when you search for images, you can find nice images that are ruined by watermarks.
But it's kind of odd that in many cases you can just search for the image to find versions without watermarks.
So somehow the logic doesn't seem to add up. If a stock agency sells an image, someone who paid for it is entitled to use it on their site, but
that means they are sharing a version of the image effectively, which renders any attempt to protect the image with watermarks kind of silly.
For instance, take this image:
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/2357607983/display_1500/stock-photo-close-up-of-tiny-water-droplets-on-a-spider-web-set-against-a-black-background-2357607983.jpg
It looks like it's 'protected'. But with a little searching it's easy to find 'unprotected' versions.
Like here:
https://www.newscientist.nl/app/uploads/Multiversum-1.jpg