Prevent image copying?

[Safalra]

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.

In that case the classic semi-transparent 'PREVIEW' watermark should
suffice.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.


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.

Ah, but for the display on the web it does not use DPI or more
accurately PPI, but a 600px image goes to what I listed as #1, don't put
hires images online. But if someone puts a full size digital camera
image switch you monitor to 1600 x 1200 you can get a pretty decent
image and no watermark and that is my point. BTW I can go up to 2048 x
1536 and I am sure there are many that have better hardware...

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

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

I suggest that you read <http://www.baen.com/library/home.htm>.
It's about books, rather than pictures, but the principle is the
same.

 

[Stan McCann]

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

Why reinvent the wheel? Check out http://istockphoto.com. My son-in-
law brings in about $500 a month from his pics. If interested in
seeing his work, try http://istockphoto.com/skashkin/.

 

[Dylan Sung]

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.

If I had animation software, all I need to do is import it into it, see all
the different frames that make up the picture, then delete the frame with
your 'subliminal' message, and save the rest.

Dyl.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I suggest that you read <http://www.baen.com/library/home.htm>.
It's about books, rather than pictures, but the principle is the
same.

I think you missed my point, I am basically in agreement with the author
of the link that you provide. I was not advocating the methods
protecting images online. Quite the opposite. If you put them out there
they are out there. I advocate keeping them at smaller resolutions,
which you should do anyway.

 

[Michael Laplante]

[preventing image copying]

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.

I like it. . .

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

news:9zPtg.110673$A8.80132@clgrps12:

Why reinvent the wheel? Check out http://istockphoto.com. My son-in-
law brings in about $500 a month from his pics. If interested in
seeing his work, try http://istockphoto.com/skashkin/.

Nice one. Interesting approach -- watermarking, lo-res images combined with
some sort of scripting to keep the images "behind the window." I'll have to
study that for awhile.

My images are going to come from local sports leagues and tourist. They
aren't going to be stock photos such as your son-in-law produces so the
istockphoto thing doesn't work for me that way, but I may try my hand at it
for general photos. Thx

M

 

[Dylan Sung]

they are out there. I advocate keeping them at smaller resolutions, which
you should do anyway.

Bandwidth, upload and download times, are all saved when you have smaller
pictures. You can save your pictures with a reduced colour palette with
almost little or no visual difference, and making the smaller than the
original helps save web hosting space too.

Dyl.

 

[Karl S]

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

The usual answer is to provide a reduced-size, low-rez image suitable
for viewing on a website but nowhere near the quality of the original.
Adding some warning text printed across your sample image would complete
the job. Let them steal "thumbnails" if they want.

 

[Toby Inkster]

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?

DPI doesn't actually mean anything on the web. It's only really relevant
to printing.

 

[Toby Inkster]

As the GIF "flickers"

.... all the epileptics in the room will start to fit.

 

[Toby Inkster]

If I had animation software, all I need to do is import it into it, see all
the different frames that make up the picture, then delete the frame with
your 'subliminal' message, and save the rest.

I think you miss the point. By the time you've saved it to your hard disk,
the subliminal message has had its desired effect and you no longer feel
like stealing the image.

 

[Stan McCann]

Nice one. Interesting approach -- watermarking, lo-res images
combined with some sort of scripting to keep the images "behind the
window." I'll have to study that for awhile.

On the website, only the lo-res pictures with watermarks are shown.
After logging in, you are then able to download one of three sizes
spending credits that you have to buy first. The minimum purchase is
$25.00.

My images are going to come from local sports leagues and tourist.
They aren't going to be stock photos such as your son-in-law
produces so the istockphoto thing doesn't work for me that way, but
I may try my hand at it for general photos. Thx

If you know some PHP, it shouldn't be too difficult to write something
similar to the way istock works.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster

I think you miss the point. By the time you've saved it to your hard
disk, the subliminal message has had its desired effect and you no
longer feel like stealing the image.

Bet it wouldn't work on kleptomaniacs or heavy blinkers.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster <usenet200606
@tobyinkster.co.uk> vouchsafed:

... all the epileptics in the room will start to fit.

.... and if they have diarrhea they will probably xxxx.

 

[Dylan Sung]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster

Yeah, sure it will. ;-)

Bet it wouldn't work on kleptomaniacs or heavy blinkers.

Or dyslexics.

Dyl.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Dylan Sung"

Yeah, sure it will. ;-)


Or dyslexics.

Furthermore, subliminal things don't work on everybody even if they're
normal. They don't work on me for instance. At least that's what my
girlfriend says. But, to be fair, she doesn't think I'm normal. I know I
am, of course, but I don't argue with her because she looks like a piano
when she's mad.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

DPI doesn't actually mean anything on the web. It's only really relevant
to printing.

Which for artistic images is probably the form of reproduction the
copyright holder is likely to be most concerned about.

At the end of the day, a screen shot of a digital image 600px (or
thereabouts) on its longest dimension can't be transformed into a high
quality, large format photographic-quality image. The image information
simply isn't there and it is impossible to add it back in. If that's the
problem one is worried about, screenshots are not much of a threat.