I saw software advertised which is said to truly prevent copying of images from a blog or  website.  This is apparently safer than the "no right click" options which savvy folks can bypass.  Have you or do you use copy protect code on your Internet photos?

And, is "no right click" even if secure a good idea?  I have been to sites with this going and find it totally irritating.  The gif shown here illustrates use of some right click options which would be disabled. 

 

Would you rather not or rather do use "no copy" code on your published images?

When posting to a blog or somewhere besides Renderosity, I have been cutting images down to the smallest file size I can consistent with a decent image and generally do not upload over 800px wide...that likely does not help with ripoffs to be used on the web but might help some wiht items ripped for printing...depending on the enlarging software used by the thief.  ????

Since I'm by no means a pro (and have no intention to become one, just like me some shooting), I'm not sure if I even qualify to answer your question. Frankly, if any of my photos turned out to be actually worth stealing, I'd probably be just thrilled. :D

I can, however, tell you this: Not being a photo theif, either, I do like to have some nice images in my personal folder for inspiration. I also remember ripping some mushroom images for my dad (great passion of his) from some highly "encrypted" encyclopedia online. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The no right click thing, I mean. Just look around your browser options and knock yourself out copying all the beauties you can find. 

I don't know about the software you're talking about but I can't imagine there is no easy bypass there. And I'm no hacker, either.

If you ask me, the best way to go is to either make them small as you're doing it or slap your name/handle/copyright notice all over the thing - so it can't be photoshopped out easily. Kind of like Shutterstock does: it's not obscuring the image, you can still enjoy it but try to get rid of it. Sure you can, in most cases, but it really takes far more time and effort (with each and every image) then devising a one time weapon against a security software and go free and wild on all of them.

 

Liam

There is no way to stop images being taken off the net. Stopping right clicking only slows 'a person' down by about .03 seconds! And watermarks.............another few seconds and they are gone too. When someone buys as image of mine, aside from acquiring it 'legally', they are also receiving an image that is far greater resolution than anything I post online. The best way to look at it I think is that photos online are advertising!!!!!!!!! Thankfully, enlarging software is never going to replicate the original full res photographic image......but artwork etc is another story!

 

The really secure way of protecting your images is to not post them. People can get just about any photo they want off the web and so the value of them steadily declines, and your own become steadily more difficult to sell. If you want to make money taking photos then start doing weddings.

I agree..no real way to protect them..I don't publish anything very big online...

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

Thank you for everyones thoughts on this subject. Some good advice to follow.

To copy something all you have to do is on your keyboard click the PrtScn Key  ( print Screen ) open photoshop, click file-new and then edit - paste and the screen is there in Photoshop and you can just crop out the bits you want.

For text in Internet Explorer all you have to do is go to View - Source and find what ever bits you want in thr HYML code.

So really no it isnt a great idea. As with everything if someone wants it they will find a way to get it.

Attached Link: Calgary glamour photographer

Keeping the images small and posting watermark on the images is really the only way. It's unfortunate that it has come to this as many photographers or other visual artists would like to have their work viewed larger without any obscuring details, but that is the way of the world together. I use a ghosted watermark that is fairly large and keep the image to abour 400x600 pixels. I suppose a competent photoshop user could remove the watermark but the image will still be low res. Most people would not want to take the time to do it as there are so many images out there, it would be easier to simply grab something else.

Shift print-screen, ctrl-V in image eding software...  Or... Browser taskbar, tools, page-info, media tab...  Or... Pearl Crescent Page Saver plugin... (These methods are also for legitimate purposes btw. One doesn't always have the same media on separate computers when working in group projects involving web design.) If somebody really wants an image there are so many ways. Once it's viewable on a computer from the web, it's pretty much fair game in that regard. The right-click thing is just a way to separate fools from their money.

If you're seriously attached to your images, do the watermark thing small-size things. But some people will be put off by that if it's too obtrusive. Subtlety is probably better in that regard. (And some people will still be idiots and steal those, as occasionally seen on blogs like PhotoshopDisasters.)

Alternately if you have the money behind you, there are services that do image lookups or data-embedded watermarks and then pursue copyright enforcement. (You can also use the tin eye reverse image search if you want to put in your own time pursuing such affairs. But that way isn't likely the most reliable and the service is still experimental.) Still most images that are stolen and used commercially are often done cross-jurisdiction because they don't suspect somebody in one country finding an image used without permission overseas. That makes pursuing infringement cases even more tricky. So good luck with that method too.

Only way to win is to keep an image offline in regards to the internet, unless you want to make it tiny and plop crap (an ugly watermark) on it. Or you can take the care-free approach and not be in it for the money and find that somebody wanting your images is a little flattering. (I still wouldn't hesitate to call out people claiming your work as their own though. That's a little different than them borrowing an image but not saying anything.) But I guess the economy has tightened up things a bit these days and some people are less willing to be loose in that regard.

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.

Another option I guess is to not post your best work, just something similar that gives people a taste without giving the farm away. I sometimes do this, saving my best to show in person to family or friends. I know some shots may be stolen but I think many people have very inflated ideas about the value of their photos. As more photos (of every subject) become available their individual value declines, leading me to say that if you want to make money taking pictures (which I don't) start doing weddings.

I knew one fellow who knocked himself out creating a web site to sell his photos, thinking he was going to make lots of money, and his photos were pretty good too. After two years he shut it down having sold zero photos!

Some theft goes with the territory. I have approximately 50 custom books available that I have created in the field of electronics education and I sell through my own publishing company all over North America. Much of my material has been stolen and copied in many colleges and universities all over. It's easy, buy it one year, photocopy it the next. Even if the colleges do not do this, and most do not, the students will rip you off. I lose at least 30% of my potential earnings due to students making illegal copies while their professors look the other way. If you think it's easy or cheap to protect your copyright, think again. It's not! It is a path to enrichment for lawyers. If I were back at the beginning I would never write a technical book or suggest this path to anyone else.

Wayne

Attached Link: Editions by Frederick photography studio

Wayne,

I understand where you are coming from and I am sorry to hear about the theft of your books. The theft of intellectual property has hurt many industries and has bred a culture of "entitlement" that has permeated our society. Many people equate having anything on the net, visual, written, audio or whatever, as being free for the taking. You are quite right that this will result in artists and authors of all sorts simply no longer wanting to produce work.

I run a professional photography studio and do not make my living only from selling my photo art nor do I shoot weddings. Publishing my work on the net here, elsewhere and on my own web site is a necessary evil in order for me to promote my business. But I am not going to make it easy for the work to be taken. Watermarking the image makes it less palatable for those who might want to use it elsewhere, and keeping the resolution low limits its usability in any case. This is not something that could help authors of books, though.

I see a great wealth of talent in these galleries and I know that many of the works took the artists a great deal of time to create. It is so sad to see them post their work at a high res with no watermark for nothing other than an "Awesome image, dude!" comment as payment. But if all artists were to pay attention and not give away their work, then perhaps they would find that prints or other reproductions of it would become more valued.

I have sold many art prints of my work for hundreds of dollars each. One canvas sold for $15,000. I would have sold nothing if I had given the files away.

• My 2 cents.

I wasn't aiming my comments directly at you Fred. As you say, the sense of entitlement has permeated our society. I feel those who want it free are generally people who have never created anything.

As far as posting images on Renderosity to promote your business, you would only have to post a few in order to have a gallery that potential customers could be referred to, but I see you have a web site for that already.

I think many are happy with an "Great photo!" comment or something similar, but I don't see that as "payment" for their image. I don't feel that other people see it that way either. While your comment "if all artists were...more valued" is probably quite true, that will never happen. Similarly, many people will also give their writing away out of choice.

 

Attached Link: Calgary boudoir and glamour photographer

Didn't take it as being directed at me. The truth is, the main benefit I get from posting on Renderosity is the "link juice". Renderosity is one of the few sites that allow you to embed links into the description of your images. So if you go to any of the images in my gallery you will find all the descriptions the same. An apology for the watermark and links to my site. The links are picked up by the search engines and it raises my site rating. The more links from web sites related to my business, the better I fare in the search engines.

Doing great work is only part of the battle. Marketing yourself and your work is equally important. Any artwork is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. My point is, if you don't value your work enough to protect it, then nobody else will value it either.

(Notice the shameles plug attached to this message via the link. Links=search engine juice)

 

• Frederick