Prevent image copying?

[Michael Laplante]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the user
can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get an
idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab the
gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar tricks to
render an image difficult to steal.

M

 

[Els]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the user
can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get an
idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab the
gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar tricks to
render an image difficult to steal.

Heard/read plenty of tricks, but the word "screenshot" always comes
into play. And even without that - you cut the picture up, I'll glue
it together again. You make a reverse image, I'll re-reverse it.

Of course, you could show your colour pictures in black and white, and
yes, then I would not be able to copy the colours. But then you didn't
show me the colours either. End of it always is: if I see it, I can
steal it.

 

[code_wrong]

Heard/read plenty of tricks, but the word "screenshot" always comes
into play. And even without that - you cut the picture up, I'll glue
it together again. You make a reverse image, I'll re-reverse it.

Of course, you could show your colour pictures in black and white, and
yes, then I would not be able to copy the colours. But then you didn't
show me the colours either. End of it always is: if I see it, I can
steal it.

how about displaying images in a java applet with an effect over it ....
something which is perceived differently when slowed or stopped ... like
water which when stilled makes a mess of the still image... (c) patent
pending , patent pending, patent pending ...

 

[David Dorward]

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get
an idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab
the gif and reconstitute the original.

Several problems ...

1. I don't think it would be all that difficult to get the original

2. You'd end up with an image that would probably be fairly uncomfortable to
look at

3. Browsers let users turn animation off - so it would break easily.

 

[Els]

how about displaying images in a java applet with an effect over it ....
something which is perceived differently when slowed or stopped ... like
water which when stilled makes a mess of the still image... (c) patent
pending , patent pending, patent pending ...

It's called flash, video, or animated gif. People can't watch the
image properly either, so I don't count that as "showing an image
which can't be stolen". Besides - a screenshot is quick enough to not
get a blur from the moving image.

 

[Nik Coughlin]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and
the user can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or
alternating bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see
the image to get an idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not
impossible for them to grab the gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar
tricks to render an image difficult to steal.

M

No, no, no, no, no. No. You're going about it the wrong way.

What you want to do, is have a link, click here to request the image. They
enter their mailing address on a form.

Then you post them in the mail an image printed with a special ink that
disappears as soon as you expose it to light, that way they only get to see
it for a second before it fades away, thereby enforcing your copyright.

Of course, they could photograph the image as soon as they take it out of
the package...

Back to the drawing board

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the user
can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get an
idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab the
gif and reconstitute the original.

How about opening up the image with a hex editor (you could also use the
old debug.exe) and overwrite the entire image fill with 0x00
characters, that ought to do it!

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar tricks to
render an image difficult to steal.

Actually the funny part is that the image creator's desire to protect
their images from theft is inversely proportional to desirably of the
images to be stolen!

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Michael Laplante"

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and
the user can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or
alternating bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see
the image to get an idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not
impossible for them to grab the gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar
tricks to render an image difficult to steal.

Best thing to do if you don't want people to "steal" your image is to put a
thin-lined grid over it, meaning on/in the actual image itself. The
"content" won't be too badly marred (especially for simple display) and the
image will be "tagged" in a meaningful way.

 

[Michael Laplante]

Michael Laplante wrote:

How about opening up the image with a hex editor (you could also use the
old debug.exe) and overwrite the entire image fill with 0x00 characters,
that ought to do it!

You're mocking me, aren't you?

However, it does give me an idea. . . maybe those ascii art programs?

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

Best thing to do if you don't want people to "steal" your image is to put
a
thin-lined grid over it, meaning on/in the actual image itself.

That's not a bad idea. Variation on the watermark principle. Would work with
any repetitive overlaid image I suppose.

M

 

[Jim Moe]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the user
can do a screencap as a last resort"

Do not provide a high quality image on the site. Provide a crummy,
highly compressed JPEG that looks okay on a monitor at the given image
size. Or brand it in some way, say, with your logo at 80% transparency.

 

[joboils]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the user
can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get an
idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab the
gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar tricks to
render an image difficult to steal.

M

Try having an animated .gif with the first animation frame "appearing"
for the shortest period possible; I say "appearing" because it won't
actually appear, because you make it blank. Right-clicking downloads
only the blank frame.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Michael Laplante"

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote in message


That's not a bad idea. Variation on the watermark principle. Would
work with any repetitive overlaid image I suppose.

Or even large picturesque images, say like Madonna in a thong bikini. The
grid shouldn't be too compact; the spaces should be large relative to the
image and the lines should be thin enough not to cover anything
important...

Maybe I'll whip-up an example and post a link.

 

[Dylan Sung]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the
user can do a screencap as a last resort"

But I'm a stubborn bastard and started thinking about it. How about an
animated gif with each image composed of half the original, or alternating
bands with the reverse image? The viewer would sorta see the image to get
an idea, but it would be a lot of work, if not impossible for them to grab
the gif and reconstitute the original.

Hey stop laughing. . . No, I haven't tried it but was wondering if it
inspired anyone with a new idea, or if they had heard of similar tricks to
render an image difficult to steal.

M

For animated gifs, they're composed of multiple images in 'frames'. All
you'd need to do is copy the image, and paste into another new file, and
there it is. If you're thinking of half an image on alternating frames,
you'd get this flickering effect, but still if some had similar software, it
would be possible to create a complete image from your separate bits.

The only good solution is to pack a watermark into your image. For that you
need a graphics editor and save the resultant image with no other layer
info.

Layers and transparency are the key words.

Dyl.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You're mocking me, aren't you?

Yeah,'fraid so. But seriously, I am an artist and copyrights on visual
media is very important to me, if you publish your images you have made
them accessible to the public and that is a fact. The best you can do is

However, it does give me an idea. . . maybe those ascii art programs?

1) Limit the size, overall resolution, of images publish online, (should
anyway for bandwidth reasons) but images <= about 400px are not really
useful for print reproduction, but will look okay on the monitor, and
thus your website.

2) Clearly post your copyright and copyright policy

3) Trust in human integrity. (Best you can do, some folks will be
jackasses or dishonest, but unless you have unlimited funds, legal
avenue is not a real option). Most folks are just ignorant and if you
catch them pilfering your images usually a polite but firm letter/email
informing them of their transgression is all that is required.

4) This option really does not work, but in another thread there is
someone who is relying watermark technology to protect their
work....well firstly the watermark is only detectable with professional
graphic software AND if you have the watermark plug-in AND you bother to
look for it! If the thief had such they could make their own image
rather than steal them! Another think to note, the watermark is lost
with a screen capture, so an image can very easily be cleansed of the
watermark. IMO not much protection.

HTH

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The only good solution is to pack a watermark into your image. For that
you need a graphics editor and save the resultant image with no other
layer info.

Elsewhere in this thread I address ineffectiveness of watermark
technology...the watermark is only detectable when you use professional
graphic software AND if you have the watermark plug-in AND you bother to
look for it! If the thief had such they could make their own images
rather than steal them! Another thing to note, the watermark is lost
with a screen capture, so an image can very easily be cleansed of the
watermark. IMO not much protection!

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Elsewhere in this thread I address ineffectiveness of watermark
technology...the watermark is only detectable when you use professional
graphic software AND if you have the watermark plug-in AND you bother to
look for it! If the thief had such they could make their own images
rather than steal them!

It's not like the thief needs those things in order for the watermark to
be a deterrent. The point isn't to warn off the thief: it's to embed
information in the image that can be used to prove ownership. It doesn't
have to be easily accessible to all.

Another thing to note, the watermark is lost with a screen capture, so
an image can very easily be cleansed of the watermark.

But the screen capture technique introduces another problem. Take a
screenshot of a 600px wide image on your 96dpi resolution monitor, and
what prize do you end up with? A 600px wide image at 96dpi. Not exactly
stunning quality, and certainly not something that can be enlarged (on
screen or paper) to any significant degree. It has almost no value,
other than display on other screens. For fine visual art, screen
captures aren't much of a threat.

 

[Michael Laplante]

Try having an animated .gif with the first animation frame "appearing"
for the shortest period possible; I say "appearing" because it won't
actually appear, because you make it blank. Right-clicking downloads
only the blank frame.

No, a person could easily dl the whole gif, then use something as simple as
Irfanview to extract the frame with the image on it. That's why I think a
better approach would be to put parts of the image on separate frames usings
lots of feathering. As the GIF "flickers" you would "see" the whole image
but if you dl the gif you're left with image pieces that would be time
consuming to piece together.

However, I haven't tested this method to see if it works as well as I
describe. Might be lots of work for little effect. . .

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

I know the answer is "No, because there are always work arounds and the
user can do a screencap as a last resort"

I acknowledge that no method is going to stop someone determined. My intent
is to put up preview pictures on a site. These pictures would be for sale --
not a whole lot of money, maybe only a $5er each as a way to make a bit of
income.

So the idea is to come up with a method that would be more than $5 worth of
hassle to overcome.

This forum has given me some ideas to play around with. Thx

M

 

[Safalra]

[preventing image copying]

No, no, no, no, no. No. You're going about it the wrong way.

What you want to do, is have a link, click here to request the image. They
enter their mailing address on a form.

Then you post them in the mail an image printed with a special ink that
disappears as soon as you expose it to light, that way they only get to see
it for a second before it fades away, thereby enforcing your copyright.

Of course, they could photograph the image as soon as they take it out of
the package...

Back to the drawing board

How about an animated GIF that shows the image for 99 hundredths of a
second, but for one hundredth of each second displays a subliminal message
saying 'thou shalt not steal this image'? It's fool-proof.