Preventing THEFT

Lydia too said:

I'm following this discussion with interest.

Click to expand...

Thanks Lydia .. this is something which does happen and has me somewhat (not paranoid) worried.

Lydia too said:

Kids will be kids, but some kids don't know it's stealing to
reproduce the photos if they display them with your watermark still
in place. I have asked teens and they say it's not stealing, it's
advertising for the owner. Truly. They think that way.

Click to expand...

Maybe it will be some form of advertising .. who knows. It's clear I need to make changes when I get home this evening. That being said, I have placed a copyright message on the site. So, lets see where this goes once I make the changes.

I'll certainly keep you (and the others) posted.

Thanks again my friend.

Regards,
Dave

A great topic to discuss.

1) You can definitely take them off the thumbs, no one is going to steel those even for their own web page.

2) The right click message is very rude and clearly not serious. Are you actually not logging IP addresses and certainly not considering suing someone. Maybe say "Sorry, right-click not possible". At least you should not accuse people of stealing, maybe they just wanted to open the thumb in a new window!

3) The bigger versions are a hard call. Your watermark over the heads are definitely effective - so much so I would think the bottom one is not really needed. I assume the rez of the pics are only 72 dpi. Maybe put the watermark diagonally across the photo? Not sure, hard question...I agree that the car pics would be taken without a second thought (as I teenager I wouldn't care about a semi-translucent mark either...)

Andrew

DOrtiz said:

OK, I think I'll remove them from the thumbs ... but do you post
images for sale of this size?
Those are GREAT shots (BTW). Something of that size would get lifted
in a heartbeat. But it does look nice. Also, that watermark you
have is very nice, visible yet nn intrusive.

This is why I've only done ONE gallery thus far, bacause I need to
come up with something that isn't so "paranoid" looking (as someone
has already said), yet protect what we do.

Thanks Tim ...

Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

Why would you want to aggravate potential customers in an admittedly fuitile atempt to prevent theft?

Anyone who'd steal your photo, was never a potential customer anyway. So, a few people, who would never buy anyhow, end up with crappy-looking wallets. Let them.

Remove your watermarks, post thumbnails large enough to actually sell the image, to the 99% of the your customers, who are willing to pay for it.

I ventured over to your site to review the images, as asked.

I left, after only a cursory examination, because I found it too bothersome to view with all that watermarking. Is that how you want your customers to behave as well?

If you must watermark, do so with very faint but highly repetitve watermarks.
Not the obnoxious & in your face method currently used.

--
Dave Patterson
---------------------
Midwestshutterbug.com
----------------------------------
'When the light and composition are strong, nobody
notices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'
Gary Friedman

Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography Ortiz Photography

Endlessly repeating, tilted slightly, and 30% layer. Just enough to show up on a print but hardly noticeable on the site.

Anyone who saw a print, with such a watermark, wouldl recognize it for what it
was, stolen property.

--
Dave Patterson
---------------------
Midwestshutterbug.com
----------------------------------
'When the light and composition are strong, nobody
notices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'
Gary Friedman

DOrtiz said:

Bob Tullis said:

I'll let you fine tune the notion to your situation, but as a quick
response - your links from the thumbnails can be smaller, so any
copying has limited potential.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean make the link thumbs
smaller or the actual photos smaller?

Click to expand...

Smaller full sized images.

DOrtiz said:

DOrtiz said:

Maybe you shouldn't worry about the kids with the images on their
books. Consider it advertising for the serious sales?

Click to expand...

Maybe that's a thought ... but it's their parents who usually buy the
prints and if their kids can get them for nothing -- where would the
sales come from?

Click to expand...

From the parents that want GOOD images of their kids. Or the team members that want that hero shot of themselves for posterity. Let them copy the crappy resolutions.

"Duuuuude, is that you? AWEsome! You should have that blown up in your room!"

[and a variation of that, with the parent speaking]

DOrtiz said:

DOrtiz said:

Another option is to invest in the digital watermark and copyright
all your images professionally.

Click to expand...

Not sure what this investment is? I though I was already watermaking
the images. It also seems a few people here are against my tampering
prevention methods and would prefer I post fill resolution 400x600
images instead.

Click to expand...

Those comments are valid, and to be taken into consideration, but ultimately it's your business and your call after weighing options. My take on this is that a subtler visible watermark, not centered (in the way) or at an edge (crop-able) will enable more comforable viewing, as well as insuring they can find the photographer.

Repeating history, I again encourage learning to fish, rather than handing them to you - here's one lead from a Google'd "digital watermark" [he said, with a wry grin]:

http://www.digimarc.com/comm/images.asp

Again, you need to figure out how this will work for your situation, with the leads others are offering. Remember that often observations & suggestions provided come from different situations (or business models) than your own, and need to be tweaked accordingly.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

andrew1306 said:

A great topic to discuss.

1) You can definitely take them off the thumbs, no one is going to
steel those even for their own web page.

Click to expand...

andrew1306 said:

2) The right click message is very rude and clearly not serious. Are
you actually not logging IP addresses and certainly not considering
suing someone. Maybe say "Sorry, right-click not possible". At least
you should not accuse people of stealing, maybe they just wanted to
open the thumb in a new window!

Click to expand...

That's a give me, and will be done this evening. I will also remove or modify the right-click script as suggested

andrew1306 said:

3) The bigger versions are a hard call. Your watermark over the heads
are definitely effective - so much so I would think the bottom one is
not really needed. I assume the rez of the pics are only 72 dpi.
Maybe put the watermark diagonally across the photo? Not sure, hard
question...I agree that the car pics would be taken without a second
thought (as I teenager I wouldn't care about a semi-translucent mark
either...)

Click to expand...

Believe me, I have been told my my daughter that numerous images I have captured have been floating around the school on people's note-books etc. If I run a watermark on the bottom, what's to prevent someone from priting my images, and cutting just the bottom off?

As I said originally -- decisions -- decisions. I think I'll have my wife look at this thread and see how she feels about the responses and ideas we've received thus far. She tends to look at things far more sensibly than I do.

The advise and suggestions offered here are priceless and certainly worth looking into VERY seriously.

Thanks again,
Dave

You're site right now does look very uninviting and actually insulting (big brother-like) to the customer. That IP address and prosecution thing is WAY over the top IMO. Tim's subtle yet effective watermark works much better. I'm sorry, but I also think that you need to have at least 533x800 images for people to choose from. Too small and they won't buy. Maybe do some more discount packages. I really think the layout/execution now is a potential customer deal killer.

--
Ingo

pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/ingor

One way is to get something that is designed to show a hover of the photos. I am using photostore from ktools.net to display over 45000 photos http://www.ebiblephotos.com and only shows a small thumbnail and when you hover over the photo then you can see the quality of the photo without someone trying to copy it as your mouse will not go over the hover photo. Hope this helps.

Sadly image theft is the main reason I never post anything on the internet, being a certified PC tech myself and owning my own business I see over and over how many people think nothing of going picture shopping and just saving things from random sites and the next thing you know it is their screen saver, or background, or being printed on birthday cards.

Nobody bothers to read peoples copyright notices, because the internet has made it way too easy to just right click and steal someone's prized work.

One of the best methods of image protection involves using macromedia flash to design the portion holding images, but it doesn't stop there, people may not be able to copy and paste images but they can still simply press "print screen" and then paste it into their favorite editing program to take the image. So you take it one step further, and actually animate the image, the trick is to have a horizontal and vertical set of bands that flow across the image at high speeds, they can even have a protection notice on them, the funny thing is if you do this, to the human eye the image on the site looks unhindered, but if they copy or print screen the image will actually be stopped with that motion, and the banding marks and message will be displayed when they paste it ruining the image.

With that combination and lower res images chances are only a hacker or someone that can disassemble flash coding would even remotely have a chance at stealing a somewhat usable image.

Keep in mind this is something beyond what even stock agencies use. It's a shame copyright's aren't taken more seriously. Some pictures can never be replaced, and it really bothers me knowing that for the most part if it ends up on the internet, it's free game.

Jon ...

This is the main reason why I'm trying to do everything i can to help display good images while protecting my interests.

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm ...."

Jon Leroux said:

Sadly image theft is the main reason I never post anything on the
internet, being a certified PC tech myself and owning my own business
I see over and over how many people think nothing of going picture
shopping and just saving things from random sites and the next thing
you know it is their screen saver, or background, or being printed on
birthday cards.

Nobody bothers to read peoples copyright notices, because the
internet has made it way too easy to just right click and steal
someone's prized work.

One of the best methods of image protection involves using macromedia
flash to design the portion holding images, but it doesn't stop
there, people may not be able to copy and paste images but they can
still simply press "print screen" and then paste it into their
favorite editing program to take the image. So you take it one step
further, and actually animate the image, the trick is to have a
horizontal and vertical set of bands that flow across the image at
high speeds, they can even have a protection notice on them, the
funny thing is if you do this, to the human eye the image on the site
looks unhindered, but if they copy or print screen the image will
actually be stopped with that motion, and the banding marks and
message will be displayed when they paste it ruining the image.

With that combination and lower res images chances are only a hacker
or someone that can disassemble flash coding would even remotely have
a chance at stealing a somewhat usable image.

Keep in mind this is something beyond what even stock agencies use.
It's a shame copyright's aren't taken more seriously. Some pictures
can never be replaced, and it really bothers me knowing that for the
most part if it ends up on the internet, it's free game.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jon ...

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

When kids take your photos off the web it is stealing. However if they like it that much they print it out, it may just enough stimulus for their parents to buy one.

Make your images look poor quality or your business look too paranoid and you will put people off.

The balance is possible, if difficult.

Dave

i think you went over the top

There will always be some who use the images as they are on your web site for myspace pages etc and sometimes even for lousy prints (because of the small resolution)

First i would get rid of the watermark on the thumbnails. It looks really bad. Second on the larger size images i would tone it down a little

we use 400x400 size for the large image and a watermark that isnt too distracting

like here



the thumbnails have no watermarks

will some people print the 'larger' one ? Of course but nothing is going to stop that

will people use them on myspace pages ? yes and as long as the website info is on the image it might even drive business to you

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

ee50ok said:

Dave,

When kids take your photos off the web it is stealing. However if
they like it that much they print it out, it may just enough stimulus
for their parents to buy one.

Make your images look poor quality or your business look too paranoid
and you will put people off.

The balance is possible, if difficult.

Click to expand...

Clearly we (my wife and I) need to do some re-designing which is why I onnly posted one gallery. I knew things would need to be changed, I just wasn't sure what or how much.

This thread has helped me tremendously, and we'll work on this further and more carefully when I get home. What caused this all to happen was I had the settings at 400x300 and 100% and I was able to print (using a HP cheapo printer) a rather impressive 5x7. However the water-mark was there, the letters appeard jaggid (sp), but the image itself was still quite acceptable. :-(

Thanks again.

Regards,
Dave

I used to zealously try to guard my photos. I got sick of trying. And I'm not sure anyone stole them or wanted them. I made enough from sales to get into tax trouble with the state. Fined $3600. Plus legal costs.

I give them away now, and life is better. Someday you may get to that point.

Not the answer you were looking for, but I share it to illustrate that it could be worse.

hi huys i am a web designer and have been asked many times on how to protect images there is a normal simple method which i have used for shop display items.

i took the photos for a shop, guns mainly and the customer wanted them all protected i told him i would take some simple shot that we could let online people take and have the rest of the site password protected.

the second option is to do it in flash, i am in the process of making a photo site template which your images are safer than most.you will have to hover over your image to get rid of the copyright but you will not have a cursor as such you will have a

semi transparent square same size as the thumb nail, when you have hovered over the image i am trying to get it to disable all keys on the keyboard. hope that makes sense.

but flash is the best method for image sites IMHO.

hope this helps a bit

--
Shooting off
Wardenet

Visit WWW.DSLRLABS.COM

Hi Mike ...

You seem to hit the nail on the head. 1st, you're also in the business of selling online, and understand what I'm somewhat experiencing (especially when my daughter says she's seen my work -- watermark and all at school).

However, you have a point ...

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Dave

i think you went over the top

Click to expand...

I'm beginning to see that, and the majority of the participants of this thread seem to concur with that, so i will revise my design when I get home this evening.

PalmsWestPhoto said:

There will always be some who use the images as they are on your web
site for myspace pages etc and sometimes even for lousy prints
(because of the small resolution)

Click to expand...

This is VERY true, and my daughter has witnessed this first hand. Although it's "frustrating" at times because I'm sure you (as well as everyone here) know how much time and effort we put into these things.

PalmsWestPhoto said:

First i would get rid of the watermark on the thumbnails. It looks
really bad. Second on the larger size images i would tone it down a
little

we use 400x400 size for the large image and a watermark that isnt too
distracting

Click to expand...

PalmsWestPhoto said:

like here

Click to expand...

How THIS I like, and your images are FAR superior to mine --not just the quality seen on the screen but you captured some awesome shots there.

That said, if I may .. can I ask the following questions:

1- I see you said you went with 400x400, I think I'll use that ratio also because I like the way your images look. However, what quality percentage are you using because the quality looks very clear and nice too?

2- May I ask what company and/or software you use to sell your images ... or did you write that yourself? It looks great and certainly functions very smoothly for customers.

3- I love this verbiage you use, "Internet Previews do not reflect the high quality of the final prints. Final prints will be professionally cropped, sharpened and color corrected. They are printed on professional photo paper." May I have your permission to use that same verbiage? I like the way it's written because it's clear and conveys a good solid message.

Absolutely awesome work, and very nice site. It’s easy to get around, easy on the eyes and very inviting. I also like the way you did your watermark (I'll need to experiment with PSCS to see if I can replicate that).

PalmsWestPhoto said:

will some people print the 'larger' one ? Of course but nothing is
going to stop that

will people use them on myspace pages ? yes and as long as the
website info is on the image it might even drive business to you

Click to expand...

That's a good point, maybe the ole "You can attract more bees with honey than you can with vinegar" is very true here.

Thanks Mike for the valued feedback, and if it's OK I will send the link of your site to my wife so she can see how you did yours.

Regards,
Dave

Have you considered going with a Smugmug pro account? I've been with them for about 6 weeks now and they seem to have image protection down to a science. I haven't bothered yet, but I believe you can make them totally transparent and integrated into your site.

Jon:

Can you point us to any sources that explain this "Flash banding" technique in more detail? And any sites that use it to see how it looks in practice?

Thanks,

Bill

I've found the best way to prevent my photos from being stolen is to not learn from my mistakes and to continually take photos with poor focusing, lousy composition and innaccurate exposure.

Karl R. Josker said:

I used to zealously try to guard my photos. I got sick of trying.
And I'm not sure anyone stole them or wanted them. I made enough
from sales to get into tax trouble with the state. Fined $3600. Plus
legal costs.

Click to expand...

Well that would simply be dumb though. You should have had a registered business if you do business

Karl R. Josker said:

I give them away now, and life is better. Someday you may get to
that point.

Click to expand...

that would be the difference between doing it for fun vs doing it for business. 2 different things. What you do for a living you wouldnt give away ...

Karl R. Josker said:

Not the answer you were looking for, but I share it to illustrate
that it could be worse.

Click to expand...

Again that was self inflicted and had nothing to do with what this thread is about and i actually think it is good you got caught. First of all you are unfairly competing in the marketplace by not paying taxes and other things and second you are not paying the taxes you should on your income which means the burden has to be carried by someone else

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com