An idea I had. I suspect it would be impractical unless someone can write a utility to automate the process, though.

The picture to be posted online is chopped into a grid of smaller images. The grid is displayed assembled within an HTML table, so it looks fine to the viewer, but saving it would mean saving each chunk seperately. Even assembling it from the browser cache would be time-consuming, so a would-be art thief might well think it not worth the effort. As protection from screen captures, if the grid is of sufficiently small squares then each square could be randomly cycled to a blurred version. The effect would not seriously detract from the picture for a viewer, but would be obvious if an image was reproduced.

Any thoughts?

Those on dial-up, and everyone worried about security, would probably scream about the plugin you would most likely need for the blur-shuffle. Judging by feedback on various people's look at my web site threads over the years, getting a table to line up correctly in all browsers can be a pain, but if it could be done,especially if the site server could do it for the artist, it should help.

still the little print screen button on the keyboard

Re: screen grabs.

The problem is how will the server know when the client system is attempting a screen grab? Unless you have a custom client-side "Renderosoity picture display plug-in" for monitoring the user's system, the system won't know you're doing a screen grab.

Making a proprietary client to securely display gallery images would open a pandora's box of technical and logistical issues, dredge up privacy issues and basically would limit the viewability of the images.

nukem

Hmm. Great idea to consider. Any 2D app can export pictures as a chopped image, so it would not be difficult to produce. I am not skilled enough in HTML to know if it would be easy to upload different size pics with different different size grids, but this would definitely be worth considering.

"but this would definitely be worth considering. " I'ts not worth considering its alot of work to basically still not protect your images. Like wolf said in the other post on this subject the only way is not to post your stuff on the net.

...but what if each of those jigsaw piece images was like an animated gif which very briefly flashed something else. If all the images very briefly flashed out of sequence you might be able to prevent a screen grab capturing the whole image. If every time you screen grabbed the image, ten random pieces of the jigsaw were say, a randomly multicoloured square, then it could make getting the image so tedious most perpetrators would give up. I don't know if you could flash the squares quickly enough to prevent it ruining the image to the observer. I know, I know, probably not worth the effort but the idea stimulated my little grey cells.

Interesting idea, smiller1, but a .GIF doesn't have the same colour depth or compression as a JPEG. A 24/32-bit JPEG would look aweful when converted down to an 8-bit GIF. Such a system would make simply looking at the picture annoying, let alone trying to steal it. There's no real practical way of controlling the timing of the "little squares" either. No one's gonna frequent a gallery whose pictures flash like a Las Vegas casino sign. :) nukem

a script somewhere does exist to screw up the pic in a screen print....I just have to remember the sites that have it on there......I'm diligently searching.... or, maybe I imagined the whole thing.

MorriganShadow That is a script and scripts can be gotten around. Provide enough warning that your image is copyrighted to you and if found elsewhere you will sue the pants off them. If you do find it elsewhere then follow up your words and take action. Complaining does nothing, action slows them down but nothing out there will stop them.

nukem, I was thinking of a flashframe technique but applied all over the picture in small squares. If each square flashed so quickly that the viewer was not aware of it but at any one fraction of a moment in time there were say ten of these squares visible, it would show on a screen print. Difficult to do with animated gifs and, as you say, quality would be decreased. Maybe an applet reading an encrypted file could display the picture with this technique?

any old browser that dosn't use the newest scripting can get around it cause the scripts are just ignored.

Old browsers would be unable to see the image as the applet would un-encrypt and display it.

If you make something foolproof, they'll just improve the fool. The only sure fire way to stop image teft is not putting the work on the net period. Sad, but that's the way it is.

that's actually an interesting idea though you wouldnt have to split the image up realy, have the applet un-encript and flash a transparent gif animation over the top with the watermark image moving to random spots the gif animation could then be used for every image on the site and not take up so much bandwidth.

I was just thinking it might help....a few years ago, on this dollz site (yes, I shamefully admit, I was a dollz chick), there was one that you had to create the doll, then click on a 'email me my doll' button. If you screen printed, something really f*d up would happen.....the screen would be really messed up. I figured it might help....yes, I admit there are ways to get around, but, again, the only way to keep people from getting your art is to not post it. that's the only foolproof way.

Yes, yes, yes. We all know that the best way to stop anyone copying your art work is to hide it under your bed and not let anyone look at it. This thread is about how we can make it more difficult. Do you leave the doors to your houses wide open as the burglers could just break the windows if they wanted to?

Just another dissenting opinion: Have you ever left your front door unlocked by accident? What happened? Did some people come in and steal everything. Did you leave it unlocked a second time? What happened then? Nothing? Trying to lock an image like locking a door only stops the casual people... people who probably aren't looking to "steal" the image anyway. Putting up script-blockers annoys these people who only want to save a version to their computer so they can look at it later. And one of the golden rules of web design is not to annoy visitors. A second thought is this: how many people in this thread actually, seriously, realistically have art that someone would steal? Think about it very hard. Would someone want to steal your non-anti-aliased Vicky in a bland pose with a bland texture?

"A second thought is this: how many people in this thread actually, seriously, realistically have art that someone would steal? Think about it very hard. Would someone want to steal your non-anti-aliased Vicky in a bland pose with a bland texture?" JohnRender that is a blatently offensive comment, and I take personal offence at it as should the others who have posed here. I for one have had artwork stolen and reposted on another site.

FWIW digital watermarking is one solution, but it can be circumvented by anyone with Photoshop if they know what they're doing (fortunately, most people don't know the trick). It makes the task harder but does not annoy visitors. Where I work we actively warn visitors that the images in our digital archive are both copyrighted and watermarked. This leaves behind people who intentionally rip off images without concern for the consequences. I have noticed recently that RealPlayer One and the DVD playback software on my machine at work do not permit screengrabs, leaving behind a black rectangle in their place. The DVD does this because the image is being served directly to the video signal by the DVD hardware and therefore isn't cached in the computer's memory or hard drive. How RealPlayer does it is beyond me (and I haven't tested it with OS X yet). Since creating a RealPlayer slideshow of JPEGs on your system is about as hard as writing HTML, it could be an option. You'd also need to have an Apache directive on your server to disallow serving files from the images directory if the request doesn't come from the server. I don't know enough about IIS servers to know what the equivalent restriction is (if it exists). There is a script I've seen which works for both Netscape and IE, is double-encrypted to prevent casual source code readers from getting anything useful, and would require scripting to be turned on in order to view the images. Saving the page would not save the images. It still doesn't do anything to protect the cache, and won't circumvent Opera or a screengrab. Until all OSes are rewritten from the ground up to have digital security measures that assume a file should not be downloaded, cached, or saved to disk unless properly authorized, we're stuck with this problem. DMCA proponents and the RIAA would love to see such a restrictive computing environment, but they don't have the blessing of the world outside US jurisdiction, and our track record on convincing the rest of the world to blindly follow American interests has been less than stellar recently.

You can look at the thread right above this one. I posted a link to an application which does pretty much what is suggested here. The image is encrypted and the client application decrypts it directly to video RAm. It also defeats attempts to copy the decrypted date from video memory, defeating screen capture. But, it definitely ain't free and as soon as someone wants to crack it badly enough, I'm sure it will be cracked as well Your best protection is still a good visible watermark or posting something so lo-rez, no one will want it. A digital watermark can help you prove it's your image if it's stolen - unless they know the trick and remove it. Anyone who expects to make money from their images should probably use all of those techniques. Ditto if you just don't want the stuff stolen, even if there's no money involved. It's a terrible Catch-22 if you want people to see something in it's full glory but want to protect it at the same time. You can't really do both. The coming cure, Microsoft Palladium, 25 years in prison for sharing mp3's etc. really seems like it may be worse than the disease.

So then Johnrenderer, you are saying that all the people in here, none of their work is worth taking anyway? How convenient of you, not to have any images in your gallery. I think you broke your own golden rule "not to annoy visitors" So a professional thief would never try the door first?? Back to the topic, protecting your images, could you have an image overlay with your signature in? Sort of like a transparent layer but with a signature in it. If you used something like flash linking to images in a database that requires a password. In the gallery when they click on your thumbnail they are asked for a password, if they don't have one then they can ask you for one. This will not stop all of the thieves out there but by doing it you can then you can say that they have had enough warnings about it's misuse and then you can look into taking legal action. Provided there are enough warnings about downloading the images, you can then say that they have not copied the file in ignorance. That would give you enough leverage in a lawsuit.

Oh sheesh peeps. Taking Johnrenderer's comments personally is just silly.

Attached Link: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/watermarking/2mosaic/

{How convenient of you, not to have any images in your gallery.} Of course it's convenient. I didn't want any image thieves to steal my images, especially the image I made of Gollum. :) If you'd like to drag out the old argument of "he's got no images in his gallery, he can't make any comments", then go right ahead. My counter is that I have never made a best-selling song, yet I know that the last Michael Jackson CD was really bad. Does not having released a CD make me any less of a song critic? Then why would not having a gallery make me any less of an art critic? Back to the point at hand: it was not my intention to personally attack or offend any specific person. In fact, I never looked at anyone's galleries, so I can't say one way or the other if someone's art is "good" or "bad". I was trying make a point: why does it seem like the people who want the most security have the least amount to steal? You hear of elderly people with almost no possessions, yet they have multiple deadbolts and chains and latches on their front doors. So, like Spit said: taking my comments personally is silly. I'm trying to make a general point, not pick on one specific person.

a simple apology for making such a pointed comment wich would have been nice but instead we get another pointed comment? you singled out the people in this thread specificly and you dont expect anyone to be insulted?

"You hear of elderly people with almost no possessions, yet they have multiple deadbolts and chains and latches on their front doors." Hmmm, because they're targeted by thugs looking for an easy score, they can't defend themselves very well, they live alone, they can't afford to lose what little they have... Not a comment on your art observation, just standing up for the elderly.

People whose sole contribution to this community is criticism (distinct from critique) don't merit the energy of a response, much less the time wasted in attempting to convince them to change their ways. Your replies are their sustenance; do the math.