Images

MeIsDavid wrote:

If a person takes an image from my site, then modifies it is it then legally *their* image ?

Dunno, about US law but under Australian copyright law, they’re not even allowed to copy the image.

If the image is copyrighted (c) then then not even allowed to take it. But the webs a massive place, how you gonna know some one has took it?

Better of adding watermarks like discussed in the post below.

"Adelson Anton" wrote in message

MeIsDavid wrote:

If a person takes an image from my site, then modifies it is it then

legally

*their* image ?

Dunno, about US law but under Australian copyright law, they’re not even allowed to copy the image.

So simple, if I had an image I did’t want anybody to steal I WOULD NOT put it on the web, I mean, think about it…..

"MeIsDavid" wrote in message

If a person takes an image from my site, then modifies it is it then

legally

*their* image ?

Thx, david

Exactly, any image that you see on the net can be taken. There away around it all. I used to think that putting a "no right click script" would protect them, but every image that you see on the web gets put in your temp internet folder so you can access it that way.

And there are so many other ways

"Tim Smith" wrote in message

So simple, if I had an image I did’t want anybody to steal I WOULD

NOT

put it on the web, I mean, think about it…..

"MeIsDavid" wrote in message

If a person takes an image from my site, then modifies it is it then

legally

*their* image ?

Thx, david

"Tone" wrote in message

Exactly, any image that you see on the net can be taken. There away around it all. I used to think that putting a "no right click script" would

protect

them, but every image that you see on the web gets put in your temp

internet

folder so you can access it that way.

True. You can do nothing to ‘protect’ an image that appears on the screen.

"MeIsDavid" wrote in message

If a person takes an image from my site, then modifies it is it then

legally

*their* image ?

No. Your work is copyrighted. However, enforcing the copyright can be expensive. If pushed to the end, only a court can decide. It’s always judged on a case by case basis. Note there are exceptions that are rarely held up in court – specifically: ordinary porno.

In the age of digital cameras and high speed internet, one of the biggest concerns for all digital artists and photographers is how to "protect" their images. Now I will admit that I am an internet/Photoshop CS junkie. I know most of the tricks in the book for how to "steal" pictures. Over the years, here are a few basic things that I have learned.

1- Any image saved on the web as a .jpg, .tiff, .gif, .bmp, etc. can normally be downloaded simply by just right clicking on the photo and saving the picture to your computer. As a professional wedding photographer, that is a very bad thing. People need to pay for my images. 😉

2- 72dpi images don’t print as well as 300dpi images do. If you are trying to protect your work, don’t ever post an image larger than 72dpi. REASON: If someone does manage to get a low res file, they still have to come to you for the real deal. Unless, of course, that somebody knows how to use Fractals Print Pro. But you do eliminate a majority of the people who want to steal your images in order to make prints. I will also concede the fact that a vast majority of web users are satisfied with prints that look like crap. I worked in photo retail long enough to figure out that a majority of our clients didn’t care too much about quality, as long as they could see their face. But, if you show just about anybody a side by side comparison, 99 times out of 100 they will like the 300dpi image better than the 72dpi image. The bottom line… Most people do not have any clue what quality photography looks like. Most people are satisfied with snapshots.

3- If the image has right click disabled, you can still hit alt+printscreen and capture the image that way. Still unsafe.

Potential Solution
I call this a potential solution, just because I haven’t figured out how to "steal" these types of images. Just because I haven’t figured it out, doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be done. There are some really talented hackers out there.

If you post your image in Java script, or via another program (slideshow, PowerPoint, etc.) that actually runs on the web, then it is hard to copy.

Think about it. You are trying to download an image that is actually running in a program. First off, in order to steal a pic running in Java, you have to know Java pretty extensively. That eliminates about 90+% of the global population (myself included). Secondly, it would take a lot of time and effort to steal that kind of photo. Most people who do know Java won’t waste that much time trying to get just one photo. The reason that it is so hard to steal Java, is that when you go to right click on an image in Java format, you do not have any type of save option, other than the script. That turns off most web surfers.

If you have your own website and are planning on putting photos/graphics on it, try running everything as a Java slideshow. If you want to do it yourself, you will want to use a web editing program like FrontPage. To do this right, you may want to hire a professional web designer. Also try making the entire background a JavaScript image. (Kind of like a watermark. Ever try to steal a watermark? That’s tough.)

Same concept for CDs. Embed your photos. If you add a auto-execute text file to the main folder of the CD, and run your images in a slideshow format, not only do you have a professional looking auto-execute CD, it also becomes virtually impossible to download. Here’s why. There are only two files located on the CD. One is the auto-execute text file, and the other is a slideshow file. If a hacker goes to try and save a slideshow with embedded pics, the file you save is of the slideshow, not the pics. (By the way, there are all kinds of free slideshows on www.downloads.com) This is my favorite way to send proofs to clients. I don’t like to use java on CDs, just because I want my pics to work on everyone’s computer. Some people have java disabled. When you are dealing with the general consumer, make it stupid simple. All they have to do is put my cd in their computer and up pops my slideshow. It is worth the time figuring out how to do this.

Like I said earlier, I am no java expert, so it may still be possible to snag pics, but if you are trying to protect your images from the vast population of the web, this is a pretty good way to go.

Best of luck
Josh

Oh, by the way, will a JavaScript slideshow still show up in your temp folder? I don’t know. Have to go see! 😛

On 4/5/04 9:22 AM, in article , "jjs"
wrote:

"Tone" wrote in message

Exactly, any image that you see on the net can be taken. There away around it all. I used to think that putting a "no right click script" would

protect

them, but every image that you see on the web gets put in your temp

internet

folder so you can access it that way.

True. You can do nothing to ‘protect’ an image that appears on the screen.

From: Joshua Jones

72dpi images don’t print as well as 300dpi images do. If you are trying to protect your work, don’t ever post an image larger than 72dpi.

72 dpi vs 300 dpi is totally irrelevant for images posted on the web. What matters is the pixel dimensions. In other words, an 800 x 600 pixel image at 72 dpi is the same as an 800 x 600 pixel image at 300 ppi. Only time the dpi matters is when you go to print the image.

If you post your image in Java script, or via another program (slideshow, PowerPoint, etc.) that actually runs on the web, then it is >hard to copy.

No, it’s not–just hit PrintScreen.

A screen capture will work on an image presented this way just like it’ll work with any other image. All you do is make the image less available–anyone with JavaScript turned off, or anyone without a PowerPoint browser plug-in, can’t see it.

—
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Simple – You publish to the open web then expect your work to be ripped otherwise secure it. There are loads of teqniques to reduce pixelation of a low res image (success of interpretation is only rated at the viewers understanding of digital art and the original capture). So trying to safe guard against these techniques is almost impossible and thus doing so can reduce the impact of anything you wish to make public. Anything that remains souly you should as i said be secure and authorised access only.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:57:58 -0500, Joshua Jones
wrote:

In the age of digital cameras and high speed internet, one of the biggest concerns for all digital artists and photographers is how to "protect" their images. Now I will admit that I am an internet/Photoshop CS junkie. I know most of the tricks in the book for how to "steal" pictures. Over the years, here are a few basic things that I have learned.

1- Any image saved on the web as a .jpg, .tiff, .gif, .bmp, etc. can normally be downloaded simply by just right clicking on the photo and saving the picture to your computer. As a professional wedding photographer, that is a very bad thing. People need to pay for my images. 😉
2- 72dpi images don’t print as well as 300dpi images do. If you are trying to protect your work, don’t ever post an image larger than 72dpi. REASON: If someone does manage to get a low res file, they still have to come to you for the real deal. Unless, of course, that somebody knows how to use Fractals Print Pro. But you do eliminate a majority of the people who want to steal your images in order to make prints. I will also concede the fact that a vast majority of web users are satisfied with prints that look like crap. I worked in photo retail long enough to figure out that a majority of our clients didn’t care too much about quality, as long as they could see their face. But, if you show just about anybody a side by side comparison, 99 times out of 100 they will like the 300dpi image better than the 72dpi image. The bottom line… Most people do not have any clue what quality photography looks like. Most people are satisfied with snapshots.

This is nonsense and as a "professional" you should know it. Relevant for print quality is the actual number of pixels – and screen size images won’t print well but if you would post a 3000×4000 pixel 72dpi image it would make a very fine print.

3- If the image has right click disabled, you can still hit alt+printscreen and capture the image that way. Still unsafe.

Right click disabling disables vital browser functions. You shouldn’t do that. The user can disable your action by deactivating JAVA script after loading the image – and then rightclick-save.

Potential Solution
I call this a potential solution, just because I haven’t figured out how to "steal" these types of images. Just because I haven’t figured it out, doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be done. There are some really talented hackers out there.

Any "protection" that requires the user to activate a browser function so the protection can work is nonsense.

If you post your image in Java script, or via another program (slideshow, PowerPoint, etc.) that actually runs on the web, then it is hard to copy.

How about pressing the print key, pasting to Photoshop (or any other imge editor) as new image and do a simple crop? Very sophisticated, indeed.

Think about it. You are trying to download an image that is actually running in a program. First off, in order to steal a pic running in Java, you have to know Java pretty extensively.

More useless efforts: Users will open the page source, easily find your image path and download them directly.

Do not underestimate users. Those who want to save money on images or even copy and sell your images can not be stopped by simple measures.

That eliminates about 90+% of the global
population (myself included). Secondly, it would take a lot of time and effort to steal that kind of photo.

Some twenty seconds to open the page source and search for keywords?

What the methods you describe do is to make it more complicated for the normal user to handle your website as you expect them to run their system in an open and unsafe way, heavily affect their browser functionality and give you a false feeling of safety without actually providing any protection.

Michael