Avoid copying pics from websites

[Nicole]

Hi everyone, I might be getting paranoid, but I was just wondering what can be done to avoid copying our pictures from websites or at least make copying difficult.

What settings are best and sizes are best before uploading, to limit what people can do with them once copied.

Thanks to all, and kind regards,
Nicole

 

[jovo]

Although you can embed a copyright notice directly on the posted image, it's really distracting and should probably be avoided in most cases. Any jpeg that's 150 to 200 kbs is so low resolution anyway, that the only copying that can happen will be to use your image as 'background' on a computer screen or as 'wallpaper'. Posting in screen appropriate sizes also mitigates against making any further use of your stuff than what I just noted.

 

[Nige]

to display an image it has to be downloaded. you can add javascript so that the user gets a msg instead of the usual menu, but they can still print screen to the clipboard then paste that into a graphics program or go to the tempory cache and ge the file from there. You could deliver your images via a Flash applet which stops all those methods, but apparently there's ways to pull them off flash sitre too (never investigated them myself)

So, the best thing you can do is keep them small. Consider the number of pixels required to print something decent, and stay under that. Resize to 600-700 pixels on the long side and you should be ok. Will appear ok on screen, but print pretty small. If you're real worried, don;t post things!

 

[Nicole]

Hi John, thanks for the tip.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Screen sizing is a maximum of 96 ppi, so keep that res low. They can look, but if printed out, they will look horrible.

 

[Nicole]

So if I set them at 72 dpi at roughly 500x750 pixels max this should be sort of ok...
Thanks Joe & Nige!

 

[Dave Miller]

Hi everyone, I might be getting paranoid, but I was just wondering what can be done to avoid copying our pictures from websites or at least make copying difficult.

What settings are best and sizes are best before uploading, to limit what people can do with them once copied.

Thanks to all, and kind regards,
Nicole

Why would you want to stop the practice? I think I would be rather flattered if anyone wanted to use an image of mine. I think that the only sure way to prevent copying off a web site is not to post any images, other than that, it's open season.

 

[TPPhotog]

Also if you sell any pictures and they get used on the Internet (ie an online magazine), they can be nicked anyway. So my philosophy is why worry in the first place, I have enough to worry about with exposures

 

[Nicole]

Hi Dave, I understand and appreciate what you are saying. But I am trying to make a living and if people can copy them free of a website, why would they pay for them?

 

[Nicole]

Of course the reason we post them is for 'exposure' and also for 'geniune feedback' from great forums like this one - where we learn so much from. I know there is a risk with anything and everything (internet based or not), but if there are ways to reduce risks, why not?

 

[TPPhotog]

Nicole I agree with you but alas the screen print of even software that takes a screen capture will always defeat prevention

 

[Nicole]

Very true Tony, anyway, was just a thought/question
Thanks everyone

 

[Ed Sukach]

Why would you want to stop the practice? I think I would be rather flattered if anyone wanted to use an image of mine.

Not to impose my will on anyone else ... but I agree. The more "press" I get, the better. Given the legal situations of the day, there aren't many magazines who will rip off an image, anyway ... and a Copyright Infringement lawsuit from me could add a little spice to the day.

As far as I'm concerned, print out all you want. These scanned images are CRAPPY anyway - compared to the originals. At a gallery maximum of 600 x 600 pixels and 500Kb .... I wouldn't consider them as anything like serious competition for the "real thing".

 

[TPPhotog]

... and a Copyright Infringement lawsuit from me could add a little spice to the day.

Another benefit of film as we have the negatives / slide to prove ownership! Mmmm now I wonder which photographers may have a little trouble doing that? LOL

 

[Nicole]

With digital the pros mostly shoot in RAW format which is like a 'digital negative'.

 

[TPPhotog]

Very true but many amateurs and enthusiasts such as the ones on a lot of the photography websites / user groups only keep jpegs as they only want them for screen display

 

[Joe Symchyshyn]

The only way to truly make sure that your work is not used without your consent is to not post at all...

The next best step would be to damage or stamp the photo somehow... I've seen copyright with name and date digitally embossed on the photo so that the image can be seen and evaluated but would be more less useable. I've also seen little captions/signatures/names added to the bottom of the frame. If you keep it white, it blends in with a forum like this, but if it's dowloaded it stays with the work... Yes you can crop it, but it's one more step... Keep the image size small is another solution. (But having your name ON the work is always the best version...)

Think about this for a second... You go to 1000 web sites and dowload 1 picture from each one... Every picture is one that you liked... Of those 1000 a few digitally put a name or website on the actual work... Which website do you think you'll actually go back to?

I think it's not only a good protection, but a good marketing strategy as well to somehow label/emboss etc. your work...

joe

p.s. With that said, a local wedding photographer once told me that they were shooting a wedding at a house, looked over to see another wedding photo on the wall and it had PROOF stamped across the face of the print. (This was a copy blown up to 20x24 from a 5x5). Some people will do what they want no matter what you do...

 

[juan]

The trouble I had, when I had a lot of my photographs on my web site, is that people would link to them in such a way that the photos appeared on the other web site, but were actually on mine, so it ate up my bandwidth. I can't remember what that's called.

I wouldn't have minded so much, but it was done without crediting me at all. I have slowly begun putting a border around my photos with my copyright info and url. That way, a thief will at least have to go to some trouble in Photoshop to remove my information.
juan

 

[Nicole]

That is a choice digital shooters have to make. I have chosen to return to film because I have seen the light! Digital shooters should be educated (by the companies that sell the gadgets) on digital limitations and its ongoing costs to maintain a viable system - especially if this generation wishes to have treasured family photos in many years to come. Who know if lawsuits will increase in 50 years time because grandchildren can no longer see their their families history??? Just thinking out loud, sorry for the ramble.

 

[Nicole]

Joe and Juan, thanks for your input. Much food for thought here! Thanks

 

[TPPhotog]

Nicole your not ramblin sooooo think away I agree and when I worked at a camera store it was amazing how many people collected their prints and memory card back from the lab. Then after a quick glance at the prints they instantly deleted their memory cards.

Dispite the warnings we gave them thay just said either
"I've got the pictures I wanted" or
"narrrr I can flatbed scan them for the web" or
"you can scan this if I want re-prints later" :confused:

 

[TheMissingLink]

There are some possibilities to prevent downloading, here in short form, but as hint(s) for googling ...

1. as mentioned above use 72dpi and small size
2. mark it visibally with your copyright
3. there's a possibility to insert a invisible watermark (sorry, commercial, but in some cases it's possible to search for the images with speacial search engines ..
4. use JavaScript to prevend the excessive usage of the right mouse button
5. make use of a dedicated image folder und excessive use of the robots.txt to prevend the usage of spiders/grabbers
6. make usage (if possible) of a ".htaccess" for users have to be authentcated manually
....

hth
Horst

 

[Nicole]

Hallo Horst, all tech jargon is a bit too much for me.

 

[Nicole]

Tony, yes the dollar speaks louder than common sense. I talk to people about digital vs film and make sure they understand the 'longevity' issues. Unfortunately the ease of digital developing and printing at home just 'saves' so much money TODAY! Time will tell...

 

[removed account4]

nicole -

look into something like digimarc
http://www.digimarc.com/
stock agencies use digital watermarking like this to track who is using their images and how they are being used.
copyright infringment is a big thing, but havin the © next to your name or having a statement at the beginning of your website doesn't do much. if you are in the states, unless you have your work registered at the copyright office in washington dc, your © *doesn't mean a thing* and you will be left in a money-pit if you try to sue for damages if you find your work being used and you want to try to get compensated. a "gang" registration only costs $30 USD and it will give you the peace of mind that if someone does use your work without your authorization you can protect yourself.
just realized you aren't in the states ... not sure what the same thing down-under is called, you might want to check ...

good luck!
-john