OK I dont know bout the rest of you but I am geting pretty tired of finding stolen work and trying to get something done. I know we can not stop all theifs...BUT I would like a change of where the copyright notice is placed. No one is gonna go looking for the copyright notice at the bottom of a page..or hidden on someones home page... PLEAAAAAAAAASE can we put some sort of notice smack dab at the top of the gallery pages? I mean something that shows up with the title of the pic right at top...right smack over a pic so it can NOT be missed. so no one can say "I didnt know it was copyrighted" I mean something uniform and that appears right under the title of the pic....please?

I don't have a problem with the idea but it's not going to stop anyone from stealing. The people who steal protest more innocence than they own.

Altho the copyright warning doesn't have to be displayed to make the image actually copyrighted..and it indeed will not stop thieves..we have something over at CP that might or might not deter this behavior a bit. CP puts a watermark over the entire image that is on display, and keeps the actual image to be bought on another computer..some people were coming to CP and enlarging the images {it was meant to see the image details better} and then snagging them..now all enlarged images have this huge watermark thru them. LSM had a prett cool idea of a script that could be used that when a person right-clicks an image, it disappears ~lol~ What about putting a transparent layer over the image uploaded..that way {hopefully} when right-clicked, all the person gets is the top layer? shrugs

Okay, I'll be the clueless one. What is CP?

no matter how many protection schemes you can dish out, if someone really wants the image and they have a reasonable degree of know-how, they will get it. About the only way you can safe gaurd is by not posting at all. Many people however, really want their work on display. So another thing to do would be to get your own web space and post on your own gallery, as would-be image thieves go to the big sites where there's a large volume of images to gather. If you're able to build up a good reputation with your own site, it will last much longer and speak much louder than a renderosity/deviantart account. just a few cents, and just a thought. I probably won't evencheck for replies, so I hope i offended no one.

Sorry Dialyn, CP stands for CafePress :) The images are also shown in a less than excellent resolution..and with the CafePress watermark right in the center of them and stretches across the entire image...the higher quality images w/o watermarks are on another seperate computer that is not accessable to anyone other than CP staff...

Thank you for the explanation. I am a little slow sometimes. I wonder, though, if that works better for CafePress since the target audience would naturally be interested in buying a graphic offsite and so would see a graphic in the better form at some point if they invested in a product, while the Renderosity audience is browsing nothing more than the gallery ... it would rather defeat the purpose of doing high quality art if no one could see that it was high quality. Not a problem for me since I'm not doing anything high quality or art...but still???

Attached Link: Morrowind Store : Dark Brotherhood : Mousepad

I have never seen a picture protection sheme yet that worked all of the time.

I went to CP to see their protection system. I selected Games because I know how protective software makers are of their IP. I went to the linked page, zoomed the image, and could not see any CafePress watermarking on the enlarged image whatsoever. I did, however, notice that if you tried Right Clicking and saving, you were actually getting a 10x10 pixel spacer vs the entire image.

However, while inspecting my browser's cache, I found what appears to be the zoomed image, in full glory, again without watermarking. Of course, there is always the screen capture option, as well.

I would be interested in seeing an example of a "protected" image to see if I can find a way around it. Being a computer geek/security freak, investigating this stuff proves useful and, sometimes, entertaining. :0) Could you possibly post a URL to a "protected" image for me to look at and play with?

sheme = scheme*

Damned lack o' Edit, again.

Attached Link: http://www.cafeshops.com/delightdesigns,delightdesigns2

Ahhhh...Some people have chosen to not use the watermarked images in their stores..{goofy me forgot to mention that it was an option} :P I'd be interested as well in what you can find out Cyber..I have my images with this 'watermarking' on them..my posters. {not that anyone would feel the need to steal THOSE ugly images, but ya never know ~lol~} The above link will take you directly to my store, I think just my posters have this enabled. Please let me/us know what you find out ok? Thanks! ~Jani

jumpstart they arent ugly at all. I thought the posters there were kinda neat. :)

Awww thanks Aggelos :)

I think it's a great idea to have at least a breakdown of the TOS in the galleries here. At the top of the page, so no one can plead ignorance....If you can post here, you can read the TOS. Or, a test of the TOS to become a member. In order to become a full member, you have to pass a test at least to 80% correct. Just a thought....it's what I do on my MSN comm. And it works there! Shadow

Attached Link: Fractal Artwork Mousepad

jump,

The "SAMPLE" watermark is only a transparent .gif overlay. If you right click on the image, you get the "SAMPLE" overlay vs the entire picture. The full, unwatermarked, zoomed image can be found in the browser cache. Also, I am unsure if this is the original image, but if you right click the small image, select Properties, grab the url and paste it into the address bar, you get the image sans watermarking.

They do attempt to hide the image in a Javascript function:

But that is after mentioning in the source code what the source image's URL is (the same obtained above).

I hope you do not mind, but I have posted a pic to verify it.

But, if I wanted that pic badly, all I have to do his hit the 'Print screen' button to do a screen capture. then, paste it into paint, photoshop, paintshop, etc, and I have it. just have to erase everything else. There is no foolproof way to prevent art theft, other than not posting your work.

Thanks Cyber ;) Just posted a suggestion over at CP: ___________________________________________________________ Might I make a suggestion: Wouldnt it be easier for the store owners to make an image WITH a 'sample' image over the original,{merged} and then keep a copy without it on their HD to upload when a customer requests buying said image? After CP gets the image for printing onto their computer {that is supposedly not accessible to the public} the store owner can delete the image uploaded,{then the only image left for buyers to see would be the image that actually has the 'sample' drawn right into it} and CP dump the cache, and do away with the source code? {or is this even possible?} __________________________________________________________ Dont know if this is possible or not as I do not understand scripting and coding, but what Im talking about is creating an exact copy of the original image, and then altering it, so much in fact that nobody would want to take the time of fixing it. Then upload that as sort of a static sample image for buyers to see. Then when/if a buyer is ready to purchase the image, the store owner uploads the original image without any altering for a short period of time, and then deleteing it again..leaving only the static image. Can this even be done? Do source codes always have to include the url of the image? If something is not done I will be removing my images from CP..I dont like a false sense of security...:(

jump,

Since you obviously saw the image, I have deleted it; being there for demonstration purposes only. I probably should delete the instructions, too, but those who want the images bad enough will find out how to get them anyway.

As Morrigan mentioned, if it can be viewed, it can be screen captured. Watermarking, IMHO, will only deter those who are unfamiliar with image touch-up techniques.

A few scripting possibilities that could be tried:

Have a script (presuming it is on a Unix/Linux based system due to potential processing performance) that does any/all of the following:

• Uses some coding that prevents the caching of the page/content on the client's system. This would prevent people from retrieving the image from their browser's cache. The HTTP 1.1 specification has an entire section (13) on Caching and Cache-Control Mechanisms.
• Places the watermark overlay automagically over the original uploaded image or embeds the watermark within the image itself and transfers that image to a separate location. This would mean only the image with the watermark would have any URL associated with it.
• Cuts the original image into a large number of small pieces (ie, 10x10 pixels) and recreates the image. This would deter anyone who did not want to "jigsaw" the image back together again.
• Uses only scripting to refer to the file. This would prevent people from finding out the image location, leaving them with only the watermarked image.
• Alters the binary image information producing a randomization of color replacements (ie, one time red becomes blue, next red becomes green, etc) and using the display script to correct the color associations. This would produce an altered image (the more hideous the better) as the source deterring people from saving it; however, this would probably consume a ton of processing power.
• Encrypt the binary image information with a random encryption/decryption scheme.

These are only a few possibilities I have thought of in my head after reading this thread. As I am not proficient in scripting, I cannot really say if any/all possibilities could even be accomplished through scripting alone.

As people tend to be "resourceful", I highly doubt that any methodology that is devised would ever be 100% foolproof. If the process is known and used by web masters, you can bet that others will find out and use that information to circumvent the protection. The most anyone can hope for is to make the process of obtaining the source image (or a copy thereof) so difficult and/or time-consuming that the person wanting the image will give up trying. An issue with that is some programming will allow the eventual retrieval process to be automated, therefore by-passing the difficulty and time-consumption hurdles. It is analogous to the software developer's dilemma of trying to protect their software from piracy.

I am not saying that image (or software) protection will never be accomplished, just trying to highlight how difficult it is going to be to find something that works the majority of the time.

Yeah, I hear ya Cyber...lots of ideas, and sounds good too...sad thing is that whatever new thing the honest ppl do to help, the dishonest ones will find a way to tear it to shreds :( Some of those things you posted up there sounds like what I was talking about..you just said it wayyyyyy better than I could ;)

So I guess the best thing to do is actually register and copyright every piece, then sue the pants off anyone who steals it. Ok see ya all in about 40, 50 years after the lawsuits are all done. LOL

the only way to protect images against the "print screen" attack is to overlay it. overlaying is a technique used in video hardware playback that paste an image over the "video output" of windows (now computer freaks will kill me: it's just to explain). for example in winamp AVS you can overlay (if your HW supports it) the avs output on the desktop. if you try to print-screen it you get your desktop with a flat black bg. but the only way to implement it is to write a java applet that does the dirty work of overlaying it on the user's screen. by passing a few parameters (imageid ecc) to the applet users will be able to view the image without visible watermarking schemes users won't be allowed to download the image directly users won't be able to download the image somehow by searching the url because all they have is the imageid, not the url (that is processed internally by the applet) users won't be able to copy it from the cache because communication between the server and the applet will be ciphered now the other face users will have to download and install the applet loading a page will need more time and resources (both on client and server side) users without HW overlay support won't be able to view anything (note: overlaying was introduced in voodoo3. i think it's 5 years ago... all the new HW should have it) and the evil one if some cracker gets the applet can (with really hard work) understand the way imageids are converted in the images urls and f**k the entire system. i had this idea while reading this forum in the past 5 minutes. i may have told only stupid things, but maybe not. please do excuse me for my poor english...

after doing some searching all over the internet i found this http://artistscope.com their copysafe system works exactly the way i proposed above, except for the overlaying. i think they trap the print-screen key (in fact with my method you'd get a flat bg instead of the image, with their method you get nothing at all, the clipboard is empty) the only problem is that safecopy costs... a lot (for me) about $2.500 for adding the protection to a site like renderosity. now, i really don't know if the guys running this place want to spend all that money... surely, it would be a good idea.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=1379854

After the recent survey, I don't think this community wants protection for the galleries. What many members want is protection for their own graphics but the ability to freely download everyone else's, under the theory that they should never have to ask anyone's permission if they are just downloading onto their own hard drive to do what they want with the graphics in their spare time. Why do they find it so hard to ask permission when that's what so many of the artists are complaining about in the first place? It strikes me as hypocrisy. I tend to judge people by how they act and not what they say...and, in this case, the actions tell me a lot. I know one thing...I'll ignore any further complaints about graphic theft from now on. Obivously, a great many people want one set of rules for themselves and different set for other people. So be it. But don't complain about Renderosity not doing anything. There is nothing they could do that would accomodate the wants of what is considered a priviledged class of downloaders that would exclude what has been called theives but are, in reality, just more of the same. Don't email that I've misunderstood. I've gotten that email. I understand all too well. I've seen hypocrites before...they all sing the same song, and it's always offkey.

if people is stupid is not my problem. my problem is just that i may ask protection for my works and i can't get it. at least, not here. but no, you haven't misunderstood. you just lost your patience. i can understand that. it should be really hard to keep this all going. what i ask for is just the freedom of choice. if someone doesn't want me to download his works i respect its choice. if someone allow me to download his works i thank him. that's all. nothing to understand. just freedom.

I'm all for moving the copyright statement - but how about doing it so that the is before the artist's name in the gallery. Replaing the "by LadySilverMage" with " Lady SilverMage" Perhaps the symbol could be made a link to a sitewide copyright statement. Equally the individual member galleries could show Lady Silvermage's Gallery protected. It won't stop theft of course but it would create more awareness and no one can claim "I didn't see a copyright anywhere" fr those who are of the mantality that it must have a symbol (it doesn't need that).