How To Protect Your Images [Archive]

rhsunderground

11-21-2005, 11:43 PM

The only way to truly protect your images so that no one may save them onto their own computer is to keep them off the internet. No matter what you do, as long as your image appears somewhere online, it is saveable by the user. Right-Click scripts, transparent cover images, and even expensive image encryption scripts can all be avoided. To see how, visit WebDev FAQ's (http://www.webdevfaqs.com/general.php#protectimage).

The best way to identify an image as your own is to add a watermark in the corner.

felgall

11-22-2005, 03:06 PM

Not only are all images savable by the user but they are also automatically copied to their computer by their browser before being displayed on a web page.

Robert Wellock

11-24-2005, 11:46 AM

Amen.

thewebman

11-24-2005, 09:55 PM

and that is final. don't ask about it again. lol

bokeh

11-25-2005, 06:11 AM

"Watermarking" (http://bokehman.com/watermark)

rhsunderground

11-25-2005, 08:48 PM

"Watermarking" (http://bokehman.com/watermark)
well the watermarking i was talking about was one that is permanently placed on the image, whereas your system is designed to hinder those that use right-clicking to save their images. not fool-proof by any means, but better than attempting to block access all-together.

bokeh

11-26-2005, 11:34 AM

well the watermarking i was talking about was one that is permanently placed on the image, whereas your system is designed to hinder those that use right-clicking to save their images. not fool-proof by any means, but better than attempting to block access all-together.Really? Was the sentence Pass your mouse pointer over the above, before and after demo image to see what your images could look like after "watermarking" with PHP too difficult to understand? In fact the script either watermarks images on the fly or watermarks them and saves them to file. It does not impede right-clicking in any way.

rhsunderground

11-26-2005, 12:50 PM

Really? Was the sentence Pass your mouse pointer over the above, before and after demo image to see what your images could look like after "watermarking" with PHP too difficult to understand? In fact the script either watermarks images on the fly or watermarks them and saves them to file. It does not impede right-clicking in any way.
forgive me - i was in a hurry and didn't take the time to read through the text. i thought it was a mouseover script that had 2 similar images.

bokeh

11-26-2005, 02:34 PM

forgive me - i was in a hurry and didn't take the time to read through the text. i thought it was a mouseover script that had 2 similar images.Well, to be fair, you aren't the first person that has found that confusing. Maybe I should make an alteration to make things clearer.

puneet

12-17-2005, 07:20 AM

;)

Avatar_sg

03-01-2006, 09:15 AM

Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't wotermarking save the pictures? I mean, for example if you use the standart PHP functions for overlayng 2 images (the watermark, and the image to hide) you'll have pretty good result at no cost. Recently I had to do such thing (for 1st time :) ) at Bulgarian Dream Properties (http://www.bd-properties.co.uk) site. I think that using the watermark for images that were in the case copyrighted was the best solution

Avatar_sg

03-01-2006, 09:17 AM

Avatar_sg

03-01-2006, 09:18 AM

Sorry for posting twice - my mistake!

bokeh

03-01-2006, 09:50 AM

doesn't wotermarking save the picturesIt is possible to watermark the image and save it to disk on the server or make the images on the fly each time they are requested. The former method uses less server resourses.

felgall

03-01-2006, 04:06 PM

There are three sorts of watermarks.

1. A visible watermark in the image file itself (or added on the server before the file is delivered). This is the type of watermark that is referred to when talking about protecting images from being stolen.

2. A digital watermark embedded into the image itself (eg. digimark). These watermarks are not visible but provide proof of ownership of the image if it is stolen.

3. Watermarks added on the client after the image is sent. These are a complete waste of time.

Avatar_sg

03-02-2006, 02:17 AM

Perhaps the best way is joining the files before sending them to the client. This way you can show thumbnails without watermark, yet the big image has it. This method is not very fast, cause the server will have to do this every time a picture is shown, but you will alway have the original image, and wilil be able easily to change the watermark

bokeh

03-02-2006, 03:34 AM

2. A digital watermark embedded into the image itself (eg. digimark). These watermarks are not visible but provide proof of ownership of the image if it is stolen.I would advise against digimark. First it is a paying service. Second it increases the byte count of the image compared to the unwatermarked version and third it wouldn't be too difficult to remove (at least the the point of unreadability); the crudest removal method I can come up with after 5 seconds thought is adding some guassian blur but if I had time to waste on this I'm sure I could come up with something more efficient and with more finesse.

bokeh

03-02-2006, 03:40 AM

This method is not very fast, cause the server will have to do this every time a picture is shown, but you will alway have the original image, and wilil be able easily to change the watermarkYou don't need to build them every time; you just need to cache them. Before serving the just check the filemtime() of both the watermark file and the original image file and if these are older than the cached version serve from the cache, otherwise build a new image, cache it and send it to the client.

xziled

03-18-2006, 06:03 AM

well actually there is a way to put your image on the internet and no one would be able to see it at all PERIOD.. it would apear as either a plain white pic or black pic or even just a string of weird character code. but yourself on the other hand, would be able to see it. this is a simple trick some parallel web sites use so that only the people with the 'plugin' so to speak can see the image. the images are jpg or gif but with added encoding that only will show if the viewer has the added encoding in a file on their computer :)

felgall

03-18-2006, 03:19 PM

FatherStorm

03-27-2006, 11:18 PM

PHP image that includes a watermark of the copyright owner as well as the time and requesting IP. Since it's PHP, you can header include a no-cache, require a session-variable to get the actual displayed image, or od other things to "corrupt" the image. The PHP-included GD library let's you get away with a lot that is a bit more difficult for image thieves to circumvent...

FatherStorm

03-31-2006, 05:15 PM

or.. possibly use AJAX. as far as I can tell, new info loaded via a AJAX call is not
cached nor visible through either view source or save page.... once you disable right-click the AJAX loaded data basically isn't there for the client-side pc?..

add watermark in the center!
--------------------------------------------
mywebsite (http://www.flash-video-mx.com)

NogDog

03-31-2006, 07:18 PM

or.. possibly use AJAX. as far as I can tell, new info loaded via a AJAX call is not
cached nor visible through either view source or save page.... once you disable right-click the AJAX loaded data basically isn't there for the client-side pc?..

*Sigh* The only way anything gets displayed is by being downloaded to the client from the server. Once it's displayed on my browser, it's on my PC, and thus I can copy it. All you can do with all these JavaScript tricks (and Ajax is nothing but a specific use of JavaScript) is stop the ignorant masses. But most of the people who actually stand to make some sort of financial gain from stealing your images will at best just be slowed down by a few seconds.

BoilerBall24

04-02-2006, 01:43 PM

"Watermarking" (http://bokehman.com/watermark)
...this method also seems moot because all one would have to do is "prnt scrn" or alt + "prnt scrn" and they've got the image there anyway... :dunno:

bokeh

04-02-2006, 01:58 PM

...this method also seems moot because all one would have to do is "prnt scrn" or alt + "prnt scrn" and they've got the image there anyway... :dunno:
Yes! With the watermark included of course. Or did the words "before and after demo" confuse you?

BoilerBall24

04-02-2006, 03:18 PM

Yes! With the watermark included of course. Or did the words "before and after demo" confuse you?
ah yes...I guess i didn't read, sorry. :confused: :rolleyes:

CStrauss

04-25-2006, 03:08 PM

My two cents that can relate to this and anything you want copyright protected is after you create something weather it be a image, a program a website what ever your passion maybe, save it to a disc, cd etc then send it to yourself registered mail. There for there is an offical timestamp on it and your signture when it comes back to you and store it away unopened in a file somewhere. There for if you have an issue where you have to prove its your work, its been dated by the goverment (atleast in the US not sure how mail services work in other countries). Its just one method to help protect your work.

bokeh

04-25-2006, 03:57 PM

There for if you have an issue where you have to prove its your work, its been dated by the goverment (atleast in the US not sure how mail services work in other countries).What are you talking about "dated by the government"?

Everytime I see this or a similar question or comments it always seems to be coming from the same location. Maybe it is something to do with the place having such a paranoid culture.

Poxicator

04-26-2006, 07:44 AM

He's explaining the simplest form of copyright - post your material to yourself and keep it sealed.

Must admit I've always wondered about this subject. Surely posting images on the web is making them public domain?

NogDog

04-26-2006, 09:22 AM

...
Must admit I've always wondered about this subject. Surely posting images on the web is making them public domain?
From the US Copyright Office FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html):
Can I copyright my website?
The original authorship appearing on a website may be protected by copyright. This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by copyright. Procedures for registering the contents of a website may be found in Circular 66 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ66.html), Copyright Registration for Online Works.

felgall

04-26-2006, 06:35 PM

Placing things on the web is NOT placing them in the public domain. Most web site content is still subject to copyright and other considerations the same as applies to any other form of publishing. The only complication is that the laws that apply vary from one country to another so there may be 200+ different laws apply depending on which country the person viewing the page is in.

slaughters

04-27-2006, 05:26 PM

...then send it to yourself registered mail. There for there is an offical timestamp on it and your signture when it comes back to you and store it away unopened in a file somewhere....Total rubbish.

Nothing proves the envelope was sealed and contained the contents you claim it did at the time it was stamped.

People could just send themselves unsealed envelopes, and then at some later time pop someone elses work into it.

Poxicator

04-28-2006, 04:39 AM

slaughters

04-28-2006, 07:31 AM

actually its not total rubbish as I was informed of this by someone who works in the music copyright business a long while ago and he repeated these sentiments less than 2 years ago.
However, as stated its the lowest form of copyright.
If the work is recorded to CD/DVD the work will also show a timestamp.The CD/DVD thing is too easy to spoof (just set your PC's clock back before recording). Neither method have any force what so ever under the law or in front of a Judge.

Poxicator

04-28-2006, 08:50 AM

OK, this needs more explanation than provided above.
The method described is referred to as "the Poor Man's Copyright" and is acknowledged by lawyers/attorney although unsurprisingly not recommended by them. It can easily be faked but it can provide the first step in proof of ownership and can be useful if used in a sensible way.
As an example, if you photograph an image, edit the image, create a final image, put all images onto a CD (with full workings eg. .psd file) mail the envelope by registered mail to a number of people including yourself and your solictor you will have a strong example of the Poor Man's Copyright. You can support this by various means eg. u/l to websites. However it will never be as strong as registering your work.
Its important to realise that by law your work is automatically protected as soon as it appears in a tangible medium (under the Berne Convention). However, as the law of copyright comes under civil rather than criminal law the costs of proving ownership in court can be rather expensive.
The Judge will rule on the strongest proof of ownership but its for you to consider the best method of doing so.

brasspenguins

04-28-2006, 12:06 PM

A simple solution would be to put the image in a Flash file. I don't know a lot of Action Script, but I'm sure you could write one that requires an authorizing variable from somewhere to display the image.

felgall

04-28-2006, 04:41 PM

The wayback machine keeps copies of web pages from a large chunk of the web. If your page has been archived there then they have a record on their site of when they copied it. For web pages that would easily demonstrate that you had placed something on your site before a certain date.

pottersdt2k

04-28-2006, 08:33 PM

The Poor-Man's method is a totally legitimate Copyright method.

A member of my family recently won a copyright case based on this method, her design being drawn some twelve years ago.
She only posted a copy of the work to herself, but also had a copy of her drawings for reference in an unsealed folder. However, both the sealed and non-sealed drawings were dated.

I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in the UK the postal service record the timing and date of the posting of the parcel by "registered delivery" using timing precise to Greenwich. The computer system stores the sender's name and address, as well as the receiver's name and address, along with date and time of posting, location of posting and who received the parcel at the Post Office. A 'receipt' is then printed off with the date, time and location (as well as cost), along with a sticker which is placed on the package - again with date, time and cost of sending.

As long as the package is still obviously sealed and unbroken (the sticker can be placed over the seal if necessary to prove the date and content), then the Copyright is legitimate...

slaughters

05-24-2006, 12:31 PM

....As long as the package is still obviously sealed and unbroken (the sticker can be placed over the seal if necessary to prove the date and content), then the Copyright is legitimate...Why did the opposing attorney simply not claim that she sent unsealed envolopes to her self 12 years ago and when this case came up, simply threw in a drawing and sealed it ?

All I can think of is that like Poxicator said, "The Judge will rule on the strongest proof of ownership" and the the other side must have had zero proof to support *their* claim.

Maybe there is also something to the fact that you are typically not talking millions of dollars in most of these cases. This method might work for something in the hundreds to thousand of dollars range, because the opposing side will not want to spend a huge chunk of change fighting the issue.

So I take back my original statement. It's not total rubbish, it's just not real reliable when you start talking big money.

the tree

05-24-2006, 12:48 PM

Why did the opposing attorney simply not claim that she sent unsealed envolopes to her self 12 years ago and when this case came up, simply threw in a drawing and sealed it ?You ever noticed those lines that they stamp on the back on every envelope? They are there to indicate that it hasn't been resealed.

slaughters

05-24-2006, 01:00 PM

How does that work? I seal the empty envelope by licking one tiny quarter inch spot in the corner and mail it to myself.

When I feel like stealing someone elses copyright I lift the flap on the side of the other corner, slip in an image then seal that side too.

How are printed lines on the back of an envelope going to stop that?

I think the strongest proof of ownership wins, but this whole mail it to your self scheme is an awfully weak, easy to beat proof of ownership.

Use of the wayback machine for web stuff is a nice solution though.

techtonyx

07-04-2006, 01:24 AM

ok I'm not fussed about people saving my images, but it there a way to at least stop the save/print/email box that appears in the top left hand corner of an image??

It can be annoying...especially on a small image

felgall

07-04-2006, 01:41 AM

Avatar_sg

07-04-2006, 01:54 AM

The problem is quite simple - the browser should take care of the ownership. I mean that this is a problem of the structure of Internet. There should be a way that you can mark an image on your web site as "copyrighted" and the browser should protect them from stealing. Of course this includes something like encrypted copyright - the picture is send encrypted and if the browser supports copyright then it shows it.
As far as I can think of something that simple I believe that everyone can and one day we will have good way to protect our ownership. It's just a matter of time one of the big software companies to take a look at this problem and solve it once and forever.

bokeh

07-04-2006, 04:01 AM

The problem is quite simple - the browser should take care of the ownership.Crap! If you think your images are so valueable don't allow them to be publicly accessible. Also you need to realise that just because they are publicly accessible they are still your property and subject to copyright.

techtonyx

07-04-2006, 06:05 AM

Avatar_sg

07-04-2006, 10:24 AM

Crap! If you think your images are so valueable don't allow them to be publicly accessible. Also you need to realise that just because they are publicly accessible they are still your property and subject to copyright.

No, I mean something else. I'm web developer after all, not designer, and I agree with you.

I'll put it this way - do you prefer to go to the court and prove your ownership, or have better way to protect it? I choose protection, as far as it is possble.

the tree

07-04-2006, 11:14 AM

Protect it? Ownership is ownership, but that doesn't mean you're going to find a way to make something dowloadable but not stealable, those conditions are mutually exclusive.

humbug

07-04-2006, 12:08 PM

Am I wrong about this?

I always thought if you used, for example, Paint Shop Pro screen capture on a web page, it would give you the image off the screen without any digital watermarking, and ignoring any overlay stuff, because it's just a dump of the screen.

Then you would take the image in PSP and crop it to the picture.

In any case, it would be easy to jumble up any watermarking, and the only safe thing to say is that if an image is on the web, it's stealable.

Whoever said just to render it at the resolution it'll appear on the screen, in jpg with 70% compression so it can't be enlarged or re-used very much is probably on the right track.

Avatar_sg

07-05-2006, 08:59 AM

Protect it? Ownership is ownership, but that doesn't mean you're going to find a way to make something dowloadable but not stealable, those conditions are mutually exclusive.
Yes, I know that it is impossible. But if you go to a gallery and see a picture, you don't steal it (I hope :) ). I give you two examples of something you can see, but can't steal. The question is - is this right? Should it be this way? I know that technikally the idea behind internet doesn't give a solution, but I believe that it should.

bokeh

07-05-2006, 09:16 AM

But if you go to a gallery and see a picture, you don't steal it (I hope :) ). If your images are very precious you could have them displayed in Le Louvre in a glass display cabinet. The public would have to view them 3 metres away so they won't be able to notice any of the flaws in the images. As for security it's pretty tight but there are still occasional thefts. The negative point though is people will need to go to Paris to view your images rather than being within the confort of their own home.

Avatar_sg

07-05-2006, 09:22 AM

If your images are very precious you could have them displayed in Le Louvre in a glass display cabinet. The public would have to view them 3 metres away so they won't be able to notice any of the flaws in the images. As for security it's pretty tight but there are still occasional thefts. The negative point though is people will need to go to Paris to view your images rather than being within the confort of their own home.
OK. OK. Wrong metafore. :)

M'gye

07-05-2006, 11:37 AM

But still there seems something so wrong about others just stealing.I mean you have to put the pics out there for different reasons but I wish there would be some way for integrity as well, some sort of protection. I guess you cannot have your cake and eat it too when it comes to cyberland. I always have these mixed feelings about the web, on the one hand it makes a person's world so much larger via information. A person can be stuck on a homestead somewhere in China and be able to partake of the beauties of Micronesia, on the other hand to lie and cheat and fraud and you name it has become so common place it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. bummer

felgall

07-05-2006, 04:12 PM

There are already ways available that provide protection for images that are built into the graphics programs that you use to work on them.

1. Visual watermark.
2. Digital watermark.
3. Resolution reduction.

The first discourages theft because the image will then be advertising the fact that it was stolen and where it was stolen from.

The second provides positive proof of ownership and can't be removed by editing the image.

The third dtops the image being able to be used off of the web since the resolution for the web is lower than is needed for use elsewhere and stops the thieves from being able to remove the visual watermark since that would lower the resolution into unusability.

bokeh

07-05-2006, 05:56 PM

The second [...] can't be removed by editing the image.That's not true. An invisible watermark such as DigiMark can easily be removed. A crude way would be to add a little guassian blur. There are plenty of other more complex ways that would produce superior results.

M'gye

07-05-2006, 06:05 PM

I guess what I mean is, we only have so long to move about on this planet and it is discouraging that one always has to strive to best some guy out there who seems to live for no other purpose than stealing our time. I was being petty, sorry.

felgall

07-05-2006, 06:31 PM

That's not true. An invisible watermark such as DigiMark can easily be removed. A crude way would be to add a little guassian blur. There are plenty of other more complex ways that would produce superior results.

I didn't realise that. Of course if the resolution is as low as possible to start with then any editing of the image would make it unusable anyway.

ulillillia

07-14-2006, 02:22 PM

Any properly web optimized images will not be worth taking for use off of the web. The problem is that lots of people upload versions of their images that are hundreds of times as big as they need to be for web use and therefore contain all of the information needed to use them elsewhere.

Optimize your images before you upload them (keeping a copy of the original on your own computer). If you then also add a watermark into the image then the loss of picture quality in removing the watermark will make the image unusable even on the web.

Watermarked images can have their watermarks undone, provided you know the algorithm. Because I know how to compute the resulting colors from alpha channels (I've known the formula for years), I can apply this knowledge and remove pretty much any water mark. With the most opaque at 128 for the alpha or more opaque (128 to 255 for the alpha), this is where water marks are most effective. At 64, as long as the background color behind it has values below 64 and above 191, you should be safe. It's easier than you think to remove watermarks. It takes a few calculations and some good experiment skills to learn the algorithm.

Plus, one could just hit that prtscr button to snag a screenshot. Blocking this doesn't work either as, one could just call up Windows Calculator or some other nonmaximized window and have that as the active window then snag the screenshot. Having a script to make the image visible only when the window displaying it is active would be the best bet, but then again, you have the browser cache to deal with and anyone willing to search it (or has tricks to reduce the number of items to search), there's no way around this either. The best method is to watermark your image.

felgall

07-14-2006, 06:03 PM

It may be easier than people think to remove water marks but it is still at least a million times harder to remove watermarks than it is to bypass any of the other so called image protection because all other methods are nothing but illusions in the mind of the person who applied them and don't actually exist. Ony watermarks provide ANY real protection for images at all since that is the only method that requires any action in order to obtain a copy of the image beyond viewing the web page (which automatically copies the image to your computer for you).

the tree

07-15-2006, 04:14 AM

I give you two examples of something you can see, but can't steal.Go on then, show me something I can't steal.
Watermarked images can have their watermarks undone, provided you know the algorithm.Not if it's a visual watermark, such as a big black signature.

ulillillia

07-15-2006, 09:29 AM

Not if it's a visual watermark, such as a big black signature.

I've already stated that, if you didn't catch it. Anything above 128 for the alpha is what you need. Having it as a solid black, however, is the best way. Adding a bunch of noise for the transparency (make the opacity of each pixel varied for the watermark) makes removing the watermark much more difficult. Also, save your watermarked image as as JPG as JPG changes the colors of pixels some to enhance compression (it's a lossy compression). The lower the quality, the harder it is to remove the water mark as you'd also have to reverse the JPG algorithm and apply the algorithm to remove the watermark. So, watermark your image and JPG it.

jacoka

07-19-2006, 01:51 PM

Hi,
Created a simple image protection method.
It works with PHP only, no need java, javascript or flash.
Here (http://gifs.hu)

bokeh

07-19-2006, 03:28 PM

Hi,
Created a simple image protection method.
It works with PHP only, no need java, javascript or flash.
Here (http://gifs.hu)Not very effective!

jacoka

07-19-2006, 04:07 PM

Print screen the only one way to download these static images.
But dynamic (animated) images you cannot copy.

slaughters

07-19-2006, 04:10 PM

A simple print screen defeats the protection

OR

In Firefox just View Page Info,
Click on the Media tab,
Select the image you want, then click Save As...
(just change the name to the real file name and type in when you do the save)

bokeh

07-19-2006, 04:36 PM

Print screen the only one way to download these static images.Well it's a pretty simple one. Just press one button on the keyboard and your done; hardly effective protection.

felgall

07-19-2006, 04:40 PM

Why not just copy the image from the browser cache - that way you get the original image rather than a screen copy of it. Web browsers always copy the images to your computer before they display them on the web page - that's why watermarking is the only method that has even the remotest chance of working.

jacoka

07-19-2006, 04:42 PM

Unfortunately, you are right ;)
This protection method is heavy for the beginner and easy for the expert.

jacoka

07-19-2006, 04:45 PM

In the loader.php is forbidden the caching of files:

header( "Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT" ); // disable IE caching
header( "Last-Modified: " . gmdate( "D, d M Y H:i:s" ) . " GMT" );
header( "Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate" );
header( "Pragma: no-cache" )

Kor

08-01-2006, 06:38 AM

In the loader.php is forbidden the caching of files:
You may adjust the computer's clock in order to bypass this.

In my oppinion one must not care too much about the fact that someone else could stealing the pictures or whichever from a web page. After all, to do what with them?

Let me tell you a story to understand my point of view.

I live in a country whose industry is far from reaching the top level of the big developed countries. Some time a go, my uncle, who is an engineer, was invited in Japan to visit one of the most modern factory in the world (it doesn't matter the profile), where the hosts have shown him everything, including their prototypes ready to be launch on the market. Intrigued, my uncled asked the Japaneese: "Aren't you worry that I might steal your ideeas and build the items on my factory?" And they replied: "Nope. You have not in Romania the necessary technology to do that. And even if you would have, we are sure that we are able to launch the product faster than you, at a lower cost."

See what I mean? I guess that most of the time the effort applied in trying to protect something on the Web is bad-ballanced. The time spent for this could have been used for a better an more profitable activity. It does not worth. I guess so.

felgall

08-01-2006, 07:00 AM

Just look at how much effort the most popular professional sites take to protect the images that they use and you soon get an idea of what is worth doing and what is not worth doing. Of course if you steal their images thay'll take you to court and sue the legs off of you.

aPerson

08-01-2006, 11:54 AM

"Watermarking" (http://bokehman.com/watermark)
Hooray for printscreen

bokeh

08-01-2006, 12:43 PM

Hooray for printscreenOh dear! Another person that doesn't understand what before and after demo means!

aPerson

08-01-2006, 01:32 PM

Oh dear! Another person that doesn't understand what before and after demo means!
Cool I'm smart. Sorry about that my mistake.

Kor

08-01-2006, 04:43 PM

I keep still on my position. Waistin' of valuable time...

JennaWrenn

08-11-2006, 02:11 PM

So tired of making images and living in constant fear (ok, so not quite) of having them copied... I know just about every way my pictures can be stolen, from right-click copy (remedied with no-right click code), highlight Ctrl+C (remedied with no highlight code-- javascript, I believe), screenshot capture using Alt+PrintScreen, etc, etc, etc...a watermark in the bottom right hand corner can be chopped off, usually without ruining the image, and a big embossed watermark across the page just looks dumb...oh well...I've heard of a no click code as well, but again, the screenshot. Is there any sort of a no-keystroke code? I know some program have ways to screen capture; I've never used them, so I wouldn't know how they work...

brasspenguins

09-12-2006, 10:23 PM

I really don't think there's a way around screen capture software. From what I can tell, it stores what is (or was) on the screen in memory. It's really cool.......if you're the one using it.

drallab

09-27-2006, 08:30 AM

If the image can be seen on the page or in the code, it can be taken; there is no absolute way to protect an image from being copied. Watermarks will work, but can be photoshoped out with time; javascript can work, but disabling javascript defeats it; disabling the right click, yet the view source is still in the menu; making the image a background and placing an image placeholder of it works, yet the original image location is in the view source; placing the image in a CSS (cascade style sheet) command so only the style sheet command shows, but openeing that style sheet shows the image URL; and then there is the screen capture, etc.

I'm a web developer and I've seen so many ways people and companies try to block image thieft. I can take an image off the web no matter how protective the webmaster is on the images.

Only true way to prevent image thieft is to gouge out the viewers eyes and cut off their hands or just not show an image all together; but I like the first suggestion. :)

dharveyd

09-30-2006, 03:28 AM

How about this?

1) Make people register to use your site and provide a credit card.

2) Validate the card.

3) Keep all important images in a database, and at the moment they are requested, use php or asp to digitally watermark them with the session GUID, date, and ip address of the client.

4) If you find 1000 copies of your photo on MySpace, you could theoretically read the digital watermark on each one, to not only prove it is yours, but to trace each copy back to the original session during which it was downloaded from your server. Since your terms of service and copyright law prohibits them from uploading the image, or sending it in an e-mail... they're pretty much guilty.

At this point you could go ahead and charge them 5 bucks per copy. Let them take you to court to get their money back. :)

binu kuri

10-08-2006, 01:05 AM

i am testing all images thread of graphics

binu kuri

10-08-2006, 01:07 AM

hai this is my test replay to you

binu kuri

10-08-2006, 01:09 AM

testing graphics

rhsunderground

10-10-2006, 02:54 PM

graphics only work in the coffee lounge.

bokeh

10-10-2006, 05:16 PM

graphics only work in the coffee lounge.Why?

rhsunderground

10-11-2006, 05:48 PM

so as not to bog down the forums anywhere else. the lounge is, of course, the only forum that would have a need for images besides the graphics forum, due to its laid-back atmosphere.

Ascendancy

11-29-2006, 09:27 PM

southgirl

01-09-2007, 07:18 PM

felgall

01-09-2007, 11:13 PM

I have been to a couple of web pages where the right click is disabled, where would I find the html to add on my pages and where on the page do I add it?
Can someone help me with this or direct me where to go?
Thanks for the info that you all have posted.

Read through the above info on how absolutely useless that is and what you should be doing that is effective.

southgirl

01-10-2007, 05:18 PM

Thank you for explaining this image thing to me and you have all helped, thanks again

WebJoel

01-10-2007, 07:12 PM

As bad as 'right-click & copy' stealing of images is, -there is another kind of 'theft' of images... benign hotlinking, but bandwidth theft is theft nonetheless!

If you are paying for monthly bandwidth useage and have large numbers of images, -you should be concerned. You may be paying for someone else's enjoyment of YOUR hard work. Someone else may be profiting from your hard work with no credit or renumeration to you.

You do not actually 'take' the image from the host, but instead, a person can 'hotlink' to it from your site! :eek: This causes increased bandwidth useage from the original host's ("your") site. Case in point, some 'free hosts' like geocities do not approve of 'hotlinking' to images in their domain from other domains because they are 'paying' for your 'free hosting'. -But they probably do not mind if you are paying for your hosting and your site is being hotlinked abroad... increased bandwidth useage is only good for them, even if it is not authorized by you/your client.

A way to STOP this bandwidth theft is with htaccess. Here is a tutorial from one such site, and it even gives you a place to verify that what you have done is working to prevent your images from being 'hijacked' via hotlinking...

http://altlab.com/htaccess_tutorial.html

Also read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

southgirl

01-11-2007, 10:32 PM

Thanks for the link to your site I found it very helpful :-)

southgirl

01-11-2007, 10:42 PM

WebJoel,
I did read the copy right page you sent me to and I now have a better understanding of the laws. A lot of people are so confused about the real laws of copywriting, I will be sending some friends there to check it out for themselves.
Thanks for the input :-)

CreativeCozza

02-04-2007, 02:15 PM

Why bother to use PHP to watermark an image?

I use Photoshop (or GIMP if I'm on my Linux)

bokeh

02-04-2007, 02:24 PM

Why bother to use PHP to watermark an image?

I use Photoshop (or GIMP if I'm on my Linux)PHP is used so the images can be modified on the server.

southgirl

02-06-2007, 08:38 PM

I have photo shop but haven't found many tutorials that I can understand, so I am still looking for some beginer one's:p .

Suunnittelu

04-19-2007, 02:50 AM

Watermarks can be deleted or removed, digimarks as well. As someone posted before, whatever image that is accesible by internet or whatever other kind of media resource (e-brochure, e-presentations, demos, etc ) can be stolen. Even doesnt matter if the picture or image is embedded in flash, executable or whatever, there is always the possibility to "extract" them. :rolleyes:

LeeU

04-19-2007, 09:48 AM

I have photo shop but haven't found many tutorials that I can understand, so I am still looking for some beginer one's:p .

Please start a new thread as your post is off topic. Thanks.

freshair

05-06-2007, 05:18 AM

I'm a photographer and generally concerned about such things. Generally, for the immediate practical purpose of life, copyright is useless except in the attempt to prove you own an original work. "You can't legislate morality." (Who said that?) Getting a copyright to encompass the world is impractical since laws vary from country to country. You might as well be a dog and chase your tail. Keep your highest quality stuff to yourself unless you are selling it through a secure site and expect to make $$. There is always something somebody can do to rip your image and client-side programming is the same way. The key is to make your image as spare as possible while still making it looking presentable. Why give somebody super quality when that image by nature on the net is subject to theft. Getting familiar with your photo software is the key to working this out and still keeping your work looking fine.
As far as bandwidth theft, try changing the name of your images or the page location and shouldn't that kill the problem? If they don't know where it is, how can they use the image? Just some thoughts.

Suunnittelu

05-06-2007, 11:03 AM

Hi all

Freshair is right, one good option is make the image as spare as possible, additionally use all kind of resources since the more simple scripts (disabling right click for example) till the most complicated. Some software might help as well. An interesting software is CopySafe, I am web programmer and I found quite challenging to "extract" or detect where the image is hosted with this application protection.

One inconvinient is that the visitor is "forced" to download the CopySafe plugin in order to browse the web page and view the images. The images are encrypted hosted in the server, the application decrypts them to present them trough an applet. The applet is secured because in the parameters is not possible to see any information that could help to "guess" where is the encrypted image hosted, any access route is visible in the Java console.

But ... in any case, protection are just protection, some are easy to break, others not, but always are a good challenging "invitation" to breaking them. The best way to protect your images is not publishing them, spare them and do not put high quality images on the net

RTP

06-25-2007, 02:05 AM

You cannot stop someone from stealing artwork, atleast short of brain manipulation. All copyrights/watermarks can do is try and deter people from doing so, and if they still continue, then provide as much evidence as possible to punish them for stealing. I've never seen a method of actually disabling someone from stealing an image. Only methods that make it harder to do so.

Even large watermarks plastered over work (which i feel is somewhat ridiculous anyway as it takes away the whole point of the art - to see it!) can be outdone fairly easy these days with someone moderatley knowledged in Photoshop (i.e. the clone stamp tool!)

I'm not sure what my point is, but unless someone comes up with some sort of uber-coding that can somehow self destruct an image when it is copied/downloaded w/out permission; then i guess we'll just have to live with our modest detterents. Anyway - 2 my knowledge i've never seen anyone steal art that's been worth fussing over, and got away with it, so it's not all bad! ;)

felgall

06-25-2007, 03:01 AM

unless someone comes up with some sort of uber-coding that can somehow self destruct an image when it is copied/downloaded w/out permission

The thing is that if you place the images in a web page then you are giving people permission to download them since web page content MUST be downloaded before the page can be displayed. To stop just anyone downloading/viewing it you can set up a password protected area and require people to login before they can see it. That way you know who has access to download what. No need to destruct the image if the person isn't allowed to download it because they can't access it if they can't login and they can't login unless you give permission to download/view.

Poxicator

06-25-2007, 10:58 AM

I listened to some (UK) legal advice on this subject recently which says whilst images are available to download that does not constitute removal of copyright. They still belong to the creator and cannot be used without permission to do so or within any conditions provided from the same source as the image. You can use the image for use if its within the licence. It was also stated that its the responsibility of a person selling images to make sure any images that do not belong to them are within the licence. It's covered by secondary infringement of copyright. To take an example of how dangerous this could be if you were to create a logo which included an image which you didn't have the right to use and subsequently that logo was used in a number of print mediums and livery you could easily be liable for the reprint and production of all that material.
I deal with stock libraries for images, they have teams looking out for violations and some images may not be available because a client has paid for sole use. Also, and I'll use Roy Lichenstein as an example, some images are rarely given permission to use.

ProfessionalBA

06-27-2007, 08:50 PM

Many years ago I downloaded a free image splitter. I was putting up a web page that had a lot of pics that were a little "xrated". Anyway I was very new to the web but knew that I did not want these pics copied. So anyway to make a long story short. I split these pics so small that it would have taken a doctor to put them back together. The beauty part was that this image splitter spit out the total code for the image in html. Now I have just downloaded a image splitter and have not tried it out. But it would seem to me that the average person would not want to copy dozens and dozens of mini pics to make one that they could use.

So my point it that if one wants to post a pic, even tho it is copied on the computer, this splitter would discourage folks from copying it. I put up stock photos on the net and I know that the small photos can not be enlarged without damage to the image. So the smaller the pic the harder it is for a person to download and use the pic, unless ofcourse you have a very small pic, then who the heck cares anyway, really. But if you have a quality pic that you want to sell on the net then you have to save it in a high resolution so that it can print out. If you same it small and at a small resolution you will not get a pic worth copying.

Anyway I really did want to find something on this site that might reproduce the effect on my images that little splitter did. So my question is directed at the moderator. Is there a code that would allow my images to be split say if it did it myself in Adobe or what have you, and allow them to be inserted in a web page, using html, that would not let space between the pics? It has been a long time since I put up pages and at first try I was not able to get the pic. to reassemble without space.

Thanks, Nancy

felgall

06-27-2007, 09:53 PM

Image splitters are defeated by the "Print Screen" button.

ProfessionalBA

06-28-2007, 09:10 PM

If one puts up an image that is a thumbnail to enlarge that would destroy it is the image was saved in a small number resolution. This is true for most pics on the net. Blowing them up destroys the look.

A pic that some one has printed using print screen, then has to be scanned back into the computer, and adjusted to the size the person wants. Seems like a lot of trouble to me for a jpg.

Bottom line is like you folks said if someone wants the pic. bad enough they will take it. I still like my split image idea, at least they have to go thru some work to get it, print screen or not.

So do you know how to program the code for this kind of image, one that has been split and grouped on a web page without the space?

Nancy

felgall

06-28-2007, 09:58 PM

No need to print screen to paper, you can just print screen straight into your graphics program and not lose any of the resolution at all.

ghippleh

06-28-2007, 11:20 PM

Physically add the watermark using photoshop and then lower the resolution by 'saving it for the web' Keep a copy of the original and you are good to go.

jim_grib

08-21-2007, 12:17 AM

felgall

08-21-2007, 02:40 AM

... wow I should run a class on how ppl steal images... some of you are clueless.

by the way I agree with ghippleh the best way to show copyrighted images on the web is to lower the res and watermark = deface the image with your brand of choice (in a way as to not obstruct the image's content.).

I don't like the wording of that but I think it should do for past my bedtime typing.
:::yawns, rolls over, and passes out:::

I said the same thing about five or six pages back but as you say - most people don't seem to understand how the web works. Once someone is viewing a web page they already have a copy of the images on their computer so only by including the protection in the image itself can it provide any protection at all.