Image posting size and web thievery.

[beaucamera]

In my web design class, the instructor is suggesting not posting images larger than 450 pixels in any direction. The problem is web thievery. What are your ideas about image posting size and the problem that posting larger images may present. What methods do you use for image protection? Why do you use this methodology?

Virginia
aka beaucamera

 

[Flew]

Virginia,

I post large images, and I certainly expose myself to just the kind of thievery that you describe. I do it because I take my pictures for myself, and to show to my friends on the web. If I only post tiny versions, then the full impact can never be seen.

The one comfort that I personally have is that it is unlikely that anyone would want to steal any of my pics. 8)

Frank

 

[gho]

Well, I post images 800px accross and haven't had any problems with thievery. Then again my images aren't all that great.

 

[Ken-L]

Unlikely it will be a problem

I re-size to a manageable size for postings, at that size they are not much good for anything else, but I don't care who may use the photos. In most I put a "signature" but that can be easily removed by anyone anyway.

I did receive an email from someone asking permission to use one of my shots as Wallpaper - I thanked that person for using it and said go right ahead!

If I were making a living selling my photos and they were in demand I might worry about it.....

 

[PGB]

Well, I post images 800px accross and haven't had any problems with thievery. Then again my images aren't all that great.

Give yourself a little more credit Gregory. Your images are great. Mine on the otherhand if stolen would be given back to me.

 

[Gale]

Put the resolution low and they won't want them because they look like the devil if they try to print them.

Thats what I do now.

Size 800x600 and low rez.

Good luck. Be proud if they like them that much..

 

[bpetterson]

Don't worry-there is nothing that you can really do.
Don't post anything that you do not want to lose.

If you use Qimage for printing like I prefer to do, you can do wonders
with small files.

The attached is 45.5 kb. 900 x 586 pixels.
My dealer called me and asked if it was OK to put an 5 x 7 in his shop
from this small file. Heck I said I'll send you the full file.

I can make a pretty good 8 x 10 from a 150 kb web posted file.

I have many people who have these point and shoots with small basci files want a better picture. No sweat, a little work in PS and then let Qimage finish it for an 8 x 10 print.

A excellant 500 kb photo file can be 12 x 17 print.

There are limitations- If you have a group shot with many faces don't expect to see detail in faces.

Here is the 45.5 kb file.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Birger

 

[greyflash]

Hey Birger, who is the gorilla pushing the button? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Flew]

Hold on there Birger, you look like you are having way too much fun there.... :lol:

Cool shot.

Frank

 

[bpetterson]

I try to have some fun every day.

Birger

 

[gho]

Well, I post images 800px accross and haven't had any problems with thievery. Then again my images aren't all that great.

Give yourself a little more credit Gregory. Your images are great. Mine on the otherhand if stolen would be given back to me.

Thanks... Sometimes I get so discouraged with my results I go for long periods without shooting anything.... So now we're gonna have a little war on who's images are worse, eh? Not to brag, but I think I'll win

 

[PhilY]

Pretty simple

nt

 

[Iliah]

Ditto to what Birger said. You can't stop them from using the images. Just an example - I printed many 4 per 3 feet posters from 2mpix Kodak p&s before QImage even appeared. Those posters are still in use.

 

[confused]

Well there are a few things you could do.

You could incorporate a pop up box if anybody tries to right click but their are soo many ways around this that it only stops people that really don't care about the photo. You can still take a screenshot, use a different browser, etc.

You could also put a signature or logo on it with your name. Although these can be taken down, they are a bit harder and the average person usually can't do it.

Low resolution....If you do a combo between all of these it will stop the people that sort of want your picture. Just remember, if somebody wants your picture enough, they will get it off the net.

 

[strobel]

Theft of photos is a huge problem in my industry. My product photos are taken and used on competitors web sites all the time. I write an email to the other companies and tell them we spend a lot of money and time developing our own product shots. If they want to use them they can pay us. Several companies did pay to use our photos and most of them removed them immediately. Then there is EBay, another problem with product photos. There is no way to stop it so all you can do is stop what you can catch. If you do not want your images stolen and used on the net then you should never post them.

Ron Strobel

 

[Philippe Roger]

Resolution does not matter: that number of pixels per inch can be changed with a photo editing program without altering the quality of the file in any way. Resolution only determines the size than one can print at that resolution: making an 800x600 picture low-resolution at say 72 ppi is not visually different than the same 800x600 image at 300 ppi. The only difference is if one prints without modiying anything: they'll get a good print at 2.6x2 inches in the second case and a lousy print at 11.1x8.3 inches in the first case.

The *only* thing that really matters is the number of pixels in the image posted (and of course the quality of those pixels: better quality can withstand more interpolation), not its "resolution".

 

[AndyE]

In my web design class, the instructor is suggesting not posting images larger than 450 pixels in any direction. The problem is web thievery. What are your ideas about image posting size and the problem that posting larger images may present. What methods do you use for image protection? Why do you use this methodology?

Wow, Virginia this question deserves a long answer. :lol:
Sit back, relax and read on.

First, your instructor is right, "free" copying on the web is widely spread and unfortunately seen by many as their right doing it - which is not the case, as we know.

1) Personal For personal pictures, with no business or intellectual property considerations, its up to you and your intend sharing pictures with the (internet)world. Whatever the size is.

2) Licensing In a more restrictive world, you can apply some "licensing regime" at your own consideration. A good place to look is the creative commons initiative from Prof. Lessig / Stanford law school. http://creativecommons.org/. For instance you can ask that your name as the author of this picture needs to be communicated. Quite often used in the academic world, where sharing is important but credit to the owners is commonplace behavior.

3) Tracking Next step is tracking but not preventing the copying. Visible signs like watermarks, invisible signs like steganographic patterns can be applied to a picture. As I said, it does not prevent stealing, but you can prove the ownership.

4) Closed community If you have a trusted community and would like to restrict access to these people. Most web servers and browsers support PKI (= Public Key Infrastructure) signatures. For instance a webserver owner can hand out certificates for the community, so he knows and controls who has access to his media.

5) Identification Unique identification of every single access. Imagine that every single download of your website is individually and uniquely signed. Of course you need the infrastructure in point 4) in place to provide that service. The ISO Standard organisation www.iso.org is doing exactly this in a fully automated way.

6) Prevention You need to apply DRM (=digital rights management) technologies to your pictures. Basically you encrypt your picture, and every time a customer opens the picture, your licensing server gets contacted and issues a kind of unlock key if the proper credentials are presented. Most of the digital content companies in "Video on demand" environments are using some sort of DRM technologies. A famous example is the fairplay technology in Apple's iPod music device.

More protection also means also more effort on your behalf to enforce it.

It's up to you, cheers,
Andy

 

[Robin Horlock]

Virginia,

One way I have of preventing image theft, or at least
making it harder is to slice the image into pieces, and
then reassemble in Go-live. It is not bulletproof but it
does make it harder. An example of this can be seen
on my "site under construction" web site. If you try to
copy the image you only get a piece of it.

www.rchcreative.com/testsite

Bare in mind that this site is still Beta and the content
is there just to get the interface working.


Hope this helps,
Robin

 

[Robin Horlock]

Virginia,

Another way of preventing unlawful usage of images
would be to place a watermark on the image. But bare
in mind that these can be retouched out, if they really
want the image.

The website could also be written in flash, but this does
not prevent screenshots from being taken. Bottom line
if they really want the image and it is on the web they will
take it. Your instructor is correct in stating that only small
images should be used but, interpolation programs are so
good now that even a small image can be made large enough
to use for some purposes.

I have had my images show up on websites, the problem
is finding the offender and then getting them to remove it.
Sometimes an email is sufficient, other times legal intervention
is required to remove the images. This can be a problem if the
site is not on this continent. It becomes a choice of whether it
is worth pursuing.

The web is a wonderful tool, but like email there is always
someone who will try to take advantage of others. In the beginning
Email was a great communication tool. Now, I personally get
anywhere from 50 to 100 emails per day that are spam. I have
missed emails from clients when sorting thru the junk. This is
just my personal pet peeve.

Cheers,
Robin

 

[Chris101]

Call me a starry eyed hippie.

I rarely add any protection to my online photos save for including a copyright notice in the EXIF. Plus I have a stated policy on my website that my images may be downloaded and used for personnal reasons.

If, however my images are used for commercial purposes, then the invisible copyright notice can be used to prove ownership when I sue them. If the notice is removed, then I can use that as proof of intent to steal the image and I'll sue 'em for even more.

Of course this requires that I keep my eye open for infringement by reading and watching the media as much as possible. This also gives me good exposure to the state of photographic art, so I can be sure and do something else.

I developed this habit after having a slide image purloined by a New York agency I had sent it to on speculation, leaving me unable to prove that I had taken the image. I was outraged when I saw it in print - I tore the page out of the magazine right in the store, swearing loudly.

Ok, maybe I'm not so starry eyed.