" 

 See, this is what I have issue with. You say that without exception the vague policy must be applied, even if the specific concern here is not directly discussed by that policy. But even though the policy specifically states no distorted images are allowed for use, you say it could be okay and overlooked if the image is distorted this time. Both of these issue come from the same policy, the same sentence even, so why can one part be ignored but another applied stricter than is literally stated? If no watermarks means no signatures, then surely no distortions mean no distortions, at least the latter directly is covered by the policy.   "