I hate these Yahoo groups that crop-chop and tube, make stationary out of our art work. I tried writting all thoes groups but my emails all bounce. I gave the imagin I did last night to the woman who tip me off. Heres the LilAngel they chop, cropped it. I give up on these groups. Yes I will still go after sites, but I haven't the time or heart to join or try and write these groups, they are all garbage.

Heres the image I gave the woman, so you might see this one out there and thats ok.

I'm sorry, Turtle. I dont have anything to offer in the way of advice, but I DO want to say I absolutely love that first image. Such innocence. It is soooo beautiful.

all i can suggest is, if you really dont know or trust anyone, post your images and put a no right click script on the page to stop them stealing....if you send them to them then there's not a lot u can do, apart from put a copyright or a watermark like u can do psp .....yournamedate on the original, then if you complain to yahoo direct they have to act over copyright infringement

Turtle - your images are awesome and I'm so sorry this is happening to you. :( Do you know if there are any other Renderosity artists that should be notified that this site has stolen images from - if so, would be a good idea to i.m. them.

"post your images and put a no right click script on the page to stop them stealing.."

A script like that doesn't keep anyone from stealing. Any image on a webpage is automatically downloaded to their cache anyway and they could easily read the source or do a screen capture. The only real way to stop it is to either not post or plaster your copyright all over the image.
The no right-click script can also be gotten around and just angers those of us who use it for navigation.

Also, with WinXP, all you have to do is move the mouse to the upper right corner of the image and a Save icon appears, allowing you to save the image even if the no-right-click is there.

I am so sorry to hear this is happening to you Leah. You put in a lot of time and hard work on your beautiful images. Go get 'em gal! Hugs, Nancy

The no right click is a good idea, unless they have gone and lifted the images from the rosity galleries here. That I am aware of, there is no way to stop them from right clicking if the image is in the galleries here at rosity. Has anyone tried contacting yahoo directly about this? Seems to me, that as its a yahoo group, on yahoos server, they could be named as a party if a suit were ever filed over the stealing of someone's art. I have heard (dont know if it is true) that yahoo would rather just take images down, than worry about an artist suing them over a particular image in question. Anyways Turtle I hope no more of your images are stolen. Just be thankful they arent making money with them, as someone else decided to do with one of my images.

guh another one! there has to be a way to stop this! you cant even view images here with out being a member so there has to be a way to control this. someone is member here and stealing images....any ideas of how to stop this??

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1338800

Well, as I posted in this thread of the same subject matter, there seems but one (somewhat) safe approach.

as kendra said the images are in their cache anyhow - so right click doesn't do any good. Although for fun I used to use one that was very annoying - if you right clicked on the page the entire page disappeared lol Took them a bit by surprise EG This is always so annoying. On my site I offer a free print to those who notify me of unlicensed use of my images. I think it helps and the response is wonderful, it also dissipates the whole "artists are just greedy money hungry control freaks" concept soemwhat.

[meta name="cache-control" content="no-cache"] [meta name="cache-control" content="no-store"] [meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no"] [meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="true"] Put this into the head of your html document and no caching of your images and no nifty IE6 toolbars.

you know I had wondered if that would work - in conjunction with the disappearing page it would really irritate them evil grin I already use the no image tool bar

The no cache command works - I tested it with IE on my website and browsed the galleries and there were no images in the cache. And Netscape7 has only files without file extensions in it's cache - no names, just numbers and letters. No idea how someone would puzzle a picture together from this files.

It's a hard thing to stop all the way around. I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to find a silver-bullet, from watermarking to rollovers. Unfortunately, if these folks are making tubes a screenshot is all they need to grab a section. :(

this is rediculouse. it is easier to steal then to protect your work! GUH

Attached Link: http://pajamapixels.com/click.shtml

that's true and almost every graphics program has screen shot capabilities. Making a portion of the image unusable though can help makethe image useless to them. Sure they could try to clone it and make it look nice, but they don't like doing that much work in general. Regular watermarks are easier to clone over though. I'm now using page curls so that the bottom portions of the images are useless - but there is no perfect solution. But if you want to mess with their little heads you can use the link above to see the page disappear. If placed in a frame it also makes it difficult to view source and find the image because they can't right click in the frame to do so. I left it out so that people could view the code. At teh very least it will irritate them - at the worst it may irritate normal guests who like to navigate with their mouse.

Thanks Puntomaus - I keep meaning to try that myself - I use that meta tag for no caching but had not yet checked to see if it actually worked.

Turtle, those images are both beautiful, but the second one is amazing! I'm so sorry that you're being ripped off by a bunch of no-talent scum, but never stop posting your pictures because of them...you have many fans among your peers who would really miss them.

oooooooh I like that vanishing page script!!!

Isn't that fun! I get an evil kick out of knowing that would shock them when the worst they may expect that right click message.

omg yes they must be like ...what the????? hhhhhhehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Lady Silver Madge: That's a pretty neat trick :) However, those who use IE only have to go up to "file", "save" and select "Web Page Complete". You get the html file and all associated files in a nice little folder placed where you want it on your hard drive. Someone needs to come up with coding that will prevent that!

sandoppe, that's why I suggested putting the actual page within a frame. It's not in a frame now to allow viewing source to get the code - just a sample page. Sometimes that won't save all the pages framed.

sometimes i put my images inside of a swf. (flash) depending on size. i use digial watermarking too. but, they can always screen capture.

nothing like the little print screen button on the keyboard just makes all the time for those scripts usless.

...

I am so sorry to hear this is happening to you. Please don't stop to do those wonderful images of yours! And also please do not stop to speak up when they stealing from you! BonBonish

That is indeed a neat trick LSM! I have no idea how it all works..scripting and such, but if I did Id def use that :D

Course, you can always use something like Flashget's Site Explorer to find the image file and download it directly. There are ways to protect against that as well but the bottom line is if somebody wants it bad enough, they'll find a way. In some cases, I imagine the more roadblocks you put up, the more determined they'll be. You can probably discourage the less clever and the less determined. which hopefully will account for a large percentage of the problem. The only thing I've seen that seems foolproof (for the time being at least) is a product that encrypts the image and decrypts it only in the video adapter's RAM. Definitely not free and probably not cheap either.

"Has anyone tried contacting yahoo directly about this?" Yes. They couldn't care less. They only care if you send them notarized statements that you are the copyright holder (or the official agent of the copyright holder) of some image. They know perfectly well that people are abusing their service. They just don't give a damn. I hate Yahoo. bonni

Netscape7 has only files without file extensions in it's cache - no names, just numbers and letters. No idea how someone would puzzle a picture together from this files. < I was curious about that so I had a look. I used ACDSee to browse the cache and I could see all the images easily, weird filename or not. I knew it couldn't be that easy... ;) bonni

I don't think it's that Yahoo doesn't give a damn, it's just that their hands are tied. The law says only the copyright holder (or his/her agent) can file a complaint and have images removed. I don't see how it would benefit anyone if they simply removed images or closed groups or whatever if absolutely anyone complained...like the woman whose ex's girlfriend is running the thing. ;-)

Naysaying the work-arounds for the many ways of (trying) to protect an image doesn't mean that people shouldn't use anything and everything at their disposal to protect against illegitimate use of their images. It's very disheartening to see someone offer up helpful ways to dissuade image grabbing and then have someone else come in and knock it right down. <:-(

The law says only the copyright holder (or his/her agent) can file a complaint and have images removed. < They're a private carrier. They can (and have!) removed all kinds of material for all kinds of reasons. They don't HAVE to let anyone do ANYthing on their servers. There is no law that requires Yahoo! to sit back idly while Disney, Paramount, Anne Geddes, and many, many, many private artists have their work hacked up and passed around. They are perfectly aware of what goes on in those groups. They just haven't got the resources or the interest in monitoring them and they don't care unless a copyright holder threatens to sue them. > It's very disheartening to see someone offer up helpful ways to dissuade image grabbing and then have someone else come in and knock it right down. < Well, passing on information that the "no cache" option doesn't work with Netscape is hardly "knocking" anything down. I was just reporting what I found out so that people would know. As a matter of fact, I've had my own images ripped off by these Yahoo! groups (which is how I know about the way Yahoo! handles these matters) AND I've got a free website that provides all sorts of technical information for people who want to avoid having their images indexed (by Google, AltaVista, etc.), how to diabled the IE6 "toolbar", how to use .htaccess to prevent direct-linking, and various other helpful topics. If providing information is a crime, lock me up. shrug bonni

It's very disheartening to see someone offer up helpful ways to dissuade image grabbing and then have someone else come in and knock it right down. <

Is it just me, or is it also (possibly even more) "helpful" to hear from someone who has tried the technique and shown that it doesn't work?

Just a thought.

Pseudonym

Belive me you only caught the english speaking ones, This goes on all over the world, thier are billions of computers don't even try to catch them all, you can't, and it's pretty sad they do this kind of crap.

Here is the truth, Anything you upload to internet is stolen the second it hits and anything you upload is at risk of being stolen. So when shareing keep this in mind.

"There is no law that requires Yahoo! to sit back idly while Disney, Paramount, Anne Geddes, and many, many, many private artists have their work hacked up and passed around. They are perfectly aware of what goes on in those groups. They just haven't got the resources or the interest in monitoring them and they don't care unless a copyright holder threatens to sue them." This is very unfair to Yahoo. Yahoo is not your policeman, you are. As the copyright holder it is YOUR responsibility to ferret out those who are stealing your images.

Attached Link: http://www.omniformat.com/

I have no idea if this is useful, workable, practical or anything - just stumbled across it in a pop-up ad. One of the functions of this (supposedly free) software is described as: "Also available is our Standard Encryption Module. Standard Encryption uses Triple DES encryption to restrict users from printing, copying text and images and modifying PDF files. It also uses Triple DES encryption to password protect PDF files." If I'm understanding this correctly, you could put an image in a PDF file and have it protected against copying. If it actually works, I suppose you would have to link each of your page's thumbnails to a PDF file which had the image in it plus title, etc if you want. I imagine anyone wanting to see the image would have to have Acrobat reader installed (pretty common these days). If the feature actually works and you have your own site where you host images and you really want to protect them (if, if, if) you might want to look at it. I'd try it out but it's too big to DL at 56K just to experiment :-)

Well, actually they could still do a screen print and if they have the Adobe software (or other brand) for editing pdf files, they could still manipulate the images. It's very hard to keep a thief from stealing. What I find sad is that so many people lack a conscience.

I think the whole idea is that the PDF and content are encrypted, so editing won't work. As to screenprint, I don't know but Adobe does tout these as features of Acrobat 5 on their site as well. Whatever the security is it's incorporated into Acrobat so they could actually be decrypting it and sending it straight to the video adapter, circumventing screen capture. There's at least one other product that uses that technique. Using a plug-in gives you a lot more capability than displaying an image through the regular html/browser interface. To find out, you'll have to download it and try or perhaps look on Adob'e site for more details on just what the level of protection provided is. If I were hosting images I wanted to protect, I'd take a look at it - who kniows?

Well, you definitely can do screen prints of pdf files (which this is). And you can edit pdf files with the right software. The fact is, anyone determined to steal is going to find a way. You can deter the less persistent criminals but the ones who are too lazy to do their own art will be very energectic about stealing yours. The lesson is...don't post anything that you really value. Which defeats the point of a gallery, doesn't it? And that's the saddest thing. The selfishness of a few destroy the peace of mind of the many. But that's true of most things. The biggest theft is the theft of feeling like you can trust other people. My only hope is that someone robs them in a way equally painful. They will learn no lesson but it's the only satisfaction I can get from all this. We really shouldn't have to have elaborate security systems....but we don't live in an honest world. And that is all of me about that.

I'm sorry but I think you're missing the point here. These will not be ordinary PDF files, they are encrypted and you're not even going to be able to open them in Acrobat unless the author sets the proper permission settings. Here is the description straight from adobe.com: "Acrobat now offers you a choice between a 40-bit and 128-bit RCA encryption level. Depending on which encryption level you choose, you can also set a variety of additional security options to prevent users from printing your document, changing all or some of its features, or copying text and images from it." No hiw well or to what extent it works, I don't know, nor will I speculate without trying it myself. It may well be totally useless, maybe they're lying, but as the old saying goes, you can light a candle or curse the darkness.

I think I know the point...and it is that anything one person can encrypt, another person can open up and make vulnerable. I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be nice to be able to do something about it. But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking anything is 100% secure. It's just not. My candle is lit regularly.,..only to be blown out. Oh well. Too bad. Too sad for me. Take care.

Sounds like an Elton John song. At any rate, the references I've checked say that cracking 128 bit encryption is "computationally infeasible." You're talking about a keyspace of 1^38 possibble keys, which translates to longer than the age of the universe to calculate with today's supercomputers. But as I said, maybe they're lying or maybe someone at Lawrence Livermore Labs wants your images real bad.

lmckenzie, I do realize that there is no fail safe methos - which is frustrating. I simply like the disappearing page because at first they don't understand what happened. It also helps to eliminate the excuse of "I didn't know it was wrong" If one has to go the the extent of using a third party software to grab something - or a screen capture then they do know what they are doing is wrong. If they didn't realize it (thanks to all those groups that tell them it's ok) then having the entire page disappear would give them pause. The best we can hope for realistically is that the person grabbing will think twice if it is difficult and relize that it probably is not ok.

"The best we can hope for realistically is that the person grabbing will think twice if it is difficult and relize that it probably is not ok." I think that principle is sound, though I'd replace the vanished page with a nice explanation of why it disappeared. If we're depending on people to respond to what Lincoln referred to as, "The better angels of our nature," then a little education is always good. A 'keep off the grass,' sign will deter the good citizen, while a razor wire fence won't keep out the other kind.

Well, since you're one of the people whose images get stolen a lot, maybe I'll forgive you for playing that trick. Mine have been stolen too but I would never ever do something like that. There are too many legitimate fans who like to save my work to disk for no other purpose than to enjoy it. I'm not about to punish them for the behavior of others.