How to ensure no photo stealing?

[Caitlyn]

Hi guys.
I've been getting more into photography and taking some what I'd like to think are nice shots that I'd like to share on the internet/Flickr/Deviant Art. Anywho, how do you guys ensure that your photos won't be stolen? Do you watermark them? Although, I do think watermarking can be annoying/ugly. So any thoughts on the subject? Thanks!
-Cait

 

[iGary]

Watermark them - hard to do much with images at 72 dpi anyway.

 

[Abstract]

Why not just make the photos smaller, like 800 pixels along the longest side.

 

[The Mad Kiwi]

Or you can just upload full size images and share.

 

[cgratti]

watermarking is useless, use 72dpi and make the pics small. if they try to blow them up to print they will look like garbage.

if your that worried about your work then dont post it at all, that is the only 100% way to avoid it.

 

[mkrishnan]

watermarking is useless, use 72dpi and make the pics small. if they try to blow them up to print they will look like garbage.

I agree... I just post small versions that give an impression of the picture. i don't post hi-res.

 

[dmw007]

if your that worried about your work then dont post it at all, that is the only 100% way to avoid it.

Sadly, this is pretty much the case.

 

[mvc]

Nothing can stop a determined and informed thief, but you can in general slow down the casual right clickers by making the image in question the background of a table cell rather than making it the contents and then put a transparent gif scaled to the same width & height as your image into the table cell. Thief gets a blank gif when they do a save image right click.

A moderately code literate thief can still get your image though, by calling it directly. Still, better than nothing, and much better than those annoying rollover "don't steal images" scripts.

Can't promise this will work on Flickr, don't know if you can get that closely into the HTML there, but its a good general workaround.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

watermarking is useless, use 72dpi and make the pics small. if they try to blow them up to print they will look like garbage.

Why is watermarking useless? Depending on the invasiveness of the watermark it can be quite useful.

The issue is not just one of someone making print from your image, but also that image being used on the web as an illustration of some sort. This is an issue that troubles me.

I would love it if future EXIF data standards had an area that could not be modified at all. Yet searchable via Google, so we could have a fighting chance against those that take and use our images (no matter how low-res) for their personal use. I know that there are issues with this idea. But at the same time IMO it is not beyond the realm of possibility also.

 

[lurcher]

I believe if the images are on your own site you can add some code so that they cannot be downloaded, but obviously this will not work with Flickr etc.

 

[tektonnic]

You can tell flickr (somewhere in account prefs) not to allow downloads of your pictures, if you do that then people can't 'right-click' the main flickr image anyway they'd have to grab it or print screen - even then they'd only get the 600x400 version.

 

[James L]

As many have mentioned, you CANNOT 100% protect an image on the internet. If the viewer can go to your website and see the image, they can download and use it for their own benefit. It doesn't really take that much effort.

Uploading smaller or lower res images, or watermarking them, is the only way to work around this.

 

[snap58]

Why is watermarking useless? Depending on the invasiveness of the watermark it can be quite useful.

The issue is not just one of someone making print from your image, but also that image being used on the web as an illustration of some sort. This is an issue that troubles me.

I would love it if future EXIF data standards had an area that could not be modified at all. Yet searchable via Google, so we could have a fighting chance against those that take and use our images (no matter how low-res) for their personal use. I know that there are issues with this idea. But at the same time IMO it is not beyond the realm of possibility also.

So do we just not want anyone have a photo of ours for personal use, or do we not want someone using a photo for commercial use and profit? Big difference to me.

I doubt it would bother me is someone wanted to use an image of mine for "personal use", might even be flattered, but then what are the odds of even knowing about it. Of course I would never quit my day job and think I could make a living with photography. Many others do make a living through photography and their viewpoints would naturally be different than mine.

Hypothetically, and getting off topic slightly

If I were to notice an image of mine being used for an advertisement or some other "commercial use", I would at first be flattered, then maybe a little put out I was getting any credit for it. I never worried about that with film scans, I have the negatives and that is pretty good proof of ownership. So if someone was making out big time with work of mine, I would have recourse. With digital it may be harder to prove ownership if you needed to. While I doubt this would ever be an issue for me, it makes me wonder, if by shooting RAW files, you would not have a better chance of defending your work? RAW is sort of a "digital negative" and if you had the original RAW file, might that be all the proof one needs? I don't think you can convert a jpeg or tiff back to RAW? Another option (of proof of ownership) is the invisible watermarks like Digimark?

I really hate some of the huge watermarks that show up on photos, and the small low res ones make it hard to appreciate the photo.

 

[vitoman]

If you use Photoshop with ImageReady you can slice the image into many sections. That usually slows them down or dissuades them from continuing as they only get a small potion of the image. This is doubly effective if the image is in lo-res - say 72ppi.

 

[cgratti]

Why is watermarking useless? Depending on the invasiveness of the watermark it can be quite useful.

The issue is not just one of someone making print from your image, but also that image being used on the web as an illustration of some sort. This is an issue that troubles me.

I would love it if future EXIF data standards had an area that could not be modified at all. Yet searchable via Google, so we could have a fighting chance against those that take and use our images (no matter how low-res) for their personal use. I know that there are issues with this idea. But at the same time IMO it is not beyond the realm of possibility also.

Post a picture with a watermark and I will show you how to remove it, Photoshop and the skill in a thiefs hands can easily remove any marks you put on the photo. I totally agree with your EXIF data method, it's a possibility but doubtful in the near future. If I have a pic I don't want in the wrongs hands I don't post it.

 

[cgratti]

I believe if the images are on your own site you can add some code so that they cannot be downloaded, but obviously this will not work with Flickr etc.

Print screen on Windows and CTRL+OPTION+4 on OS X to grab the photo.

 

[Carl Spackler]

If you're that concerned, those pages are probably not the way to go. Domain names and hosting are really inexpensive at places like GoDaddy.com. I've done web pages for some folks who don't want thier images downloaded, or at least easily downloaded, so I just used Flash. Safe and it offers a nice interface. If you don't want to go that route, I really like vitoman's suggestion of slicing the image in Photoshop.

Even with flash, there's no reason someone can't use a screen grab app to get them.

I think the simple fact is that if your audience is a respectful one, your images are safe. I wouldn't be overly concerned about it.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

how do you guys ensure that your photos won't be stolen?

Don't put them on the 'net.

 

[sushi]

I would love it if future EXIF data standards had an area that could not be modified at all.

This is a wonderful idea Chip NoVaMac.

Commercial programs could abide by this rule.

However, freeware, shareware, hackware, etc., could be developed to circumvent this issue. Who knows, maybe even a Photoshop plug-in would be developed.

After all, there are already programs out there to circumvent DVD, iTMS, and other protected formats. Not that I know anything. Just what I've heard.

 

[mkrishnan]

Print screen on Windows and CTRL+OPTION+4 on OS X to grab the photo.

Some people use Flash to show their art on their sites, rather than directly placing the image files. On Macs, it will probably still not subvert this solution (I don't think print screen sees the content of Flash on Windows, but I'm not sure if this is still true).

But there's a diminishing returns thing going on here. Look at the likely economic costs. Why are you putting your work on the net? If you are trying to create revenue, you lose the revenue opportunity when you take them down, even if you avoid the theft. The same is true if you are looking to generate recognition. Figure out what the value of the theft is ... because things like Flash aren't such light undertakings... So it's worth it to figure out if it's worth it.

 

[ChrisA]

First say to yourself "Why", then the answer is easy.

Hi guys.
I've been getting more into photography and taking some what I'd like to think are nice shots that I'd like to share on the internet/Flickr/Deviant Art. Anywho, how do you guys ensure that your photos won't be stolen? Do you watermark them? Although, I do think watermarking can be annoying/ugly. So any thoughts on the subject? Thanks!
-Cait

First off Why do you care? Seriously WHY? What to do depends on how you answer that question. If you sell fine art prints and want to post samples of your work then post reduced resolution images that are maybe 600 pixels wide. Thse will look good on the web but not as prints. If your images are for sale for use on the web you will have to make even smaller images with ugly watermarks. But if you have not plans to use the image in a comercial way why do you care?

When you can clearly state what it is your are trying to prevent then it will be easy to make a plan to prevent that one thing from happening. If you have a unclear requirements it will remain unclear how to solve them.

 

[cgratti]

Some people use Flash to show their art on their sites, rather than directly placing the image files. On Macs, it will probably still not subvert this solution (I don't think print screen sees the content of Flash on Windows, but I'm not sure if this is still true).

But there's a diminishing returns thing going on here. Look at the likely economic costs. Why are you putting your work on the net? If you are trying to create revenue, you lose the revenue opportunity when you take them down, even if you avoid the theft. The same is true if you are looking to generate recognition. Figure out what the value of the theft is ... because things like Flash aren't such light undertakings... So it's worth it to figure out if it's worth it.

There is a program called FlashSaver, it enables users to "steal" the flash files and save them to their computers easily. Worst of all, the program is FREE.

 

[paleck]

There is a program called FlashSaver, it enables users to "steal" the flash files and save them to their computers easily. Worst of all, the program is FREE.

Even easier than that would be wget. Since any flash file just gets downloaded in the background and then run by your web browser. It's simple to look through the source code find the flash file and grab it.