Posting Photos - a discussion thread

[Lancerlady]

Is there some sort of technical "safeguard" that would allow photos to be viewed, but not copied or downloaded in any way?

I'm not at all computer savy, so I'm just curious. And if no such safeguard exists, what would it take to create one just so no one has to worry about photos they post. B)

Well Mark, what we did on our website (after this situation) was we "encrypted" them through the website. The website service offers something called a subdirectory where you can create a ssl and then encrypt which means you can right click but you can't "save as", so nobody can take them without permission. I hate to have to do that but people should ask first anyway.

Or another thing you can do is watermark them. I hope this helps.

http://photoshop911.typepad.com/help/2004/...marking_ph.html

Here's a link to answer how to do that...and another

http://www.picture-shark.com/

this one gives a program to use..

Edited September 25, 2006 by Lancerlady

[markdewine]

LancerLady- Thanks for the prompt answer. It's good that photos can be viewed and protected. I really don't have any photos to post, because all the photos I "have" belong to someone else. Therefore, I look at them, an nothing more.

[JohnD]

Is there some sort of technical "safeguard" that would allow photos to be viewed, but not copied or downloaded in any way?

I'm not at all computer savy, so I'm just curious. And if no such safeguard exists, what would it take to create one just so no one has to worry about photos they post. B)

There is no sure-fire way to prevent images presented to an internet browser from being saved. There ARE some things that can be done to disable the 'right-click' functionality in some browsers - but its effectiveness (from zero to so-so) depends on the browser itself. Further, implementing this 'hack' requires changes to the configuration and code associated with the site. That said, our forum software is largely database-driven - so the (mostly ineffective) 'typical' methods used for disabling the feature in the browser are not readily available.

Bottom line - if people want to 'swipe' images from this site .... they can do it. The only protections we have are:

1. Not Posting
   
2. Copyright Law and the courts
   
3. the HONESTY and INTEGRITY of our members
   

The choice is your's to make.

-john

[ptr250]

Since there are two threads on the same subject I'm posting my responce on both.

You know this whole mess started because some babies started crying that someone was selling their pictures. How much money was actually involved $100.00, $500.00, $1000.00? I’ll bet it was less than $100.00. All of this commotion for chump change! Some of you people need to get a life. I’m going to start posting a few more pics and if you want to sell the prints for a few cents, knock yourself out!

Edited September 25, 2006 by ptr250

[Jazzycat1]

Since there are two threads on the same subject I'm posting my responce on both.

You know this whole mess started because some babies started crying that someone was selling their pictures. How much money was actually involved $100.00, $500.00, $1000.00? I’ll bet it was less than $100.00. All of this commotion for chump change! Some of you people need to get a life. I’m going to start posting a few more pics and if you want to sell the prints for a few cents, knock yourself out!

Now there's the right answer!

[byline]

Now there's the right answer!

Actually, I think JohnD gave the most correct answers to this issue.

[Diceman]

Well Mark, what we did on our website (after this situation) was we "encrypted" them through the website. The website service offers something called a subdirectory where you can create a ssl and then encrypt which means you can right click but you can't "save as", so nobody can take them without permission. I hate to have to do that but people should ask first anyway.

Well, if one is enterprising enough (and knows enough about the internal workings of their browser) this can also be .. er, circumvented...

For lack of a better term, I'll call this "Diceman's Axiom":

"If you can see it on your screen, you can save it".

:)

But it would probably keep most people from copying...

As John said:

The best way to prevent other folks from "borrowing" your pics is to not post them in the first place!

(The second best, IMO is to only provide a lower bitrate/thumb-nail-type "not worth it" version of your original to give them a taste...)

Or another thing you can do is watermark them. I hope this helps.

http://photoshop911.typepad.com/help/2004/...marking_ph.html

Here's a link to answer how to do that...and another

http://www.picture-shark.com/

this one gives a program to use..

Another good idea - that unfortunately can also be bypassed if one really wants to spend the time...

(Software already exists to "scrub" watermarks, if one knows where to look. There are also prgs that will allow one to edit the EXIF info in the image.)

It eventually becomes a game of diminishing returns, especially with all the "script kiddies" on the 'Net who have nothing better to do than find ways around stuff like this (witness DVD Decrypter, AnyDVD, etc.)

(Sigh)

Ultimately:

You have to trust somebody sometime - and you also have to determine if it is really worth the $$/effort to try and protect it...

(You'll never be truly successful; if someone wants it bad enough, they'll get it...)

If so, then don't share the originals!

If not, then you can only hope that the folks appreciating your efforts will do the right thing (or not do the wrong thing)...

"...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

-D Miller

:)

[susantaylor40]

Has anyone else noticed that the house of cards ( or pics, in this case) came tumbling down when Charles Johnson, aka old ohio drum corps, made his pronouncement without further explaination as to why, and the firestorm ensued?

[Malibu]

Since there are two threads on the same subject I'm posting my responce on both.

You know this whole mess started because some babies started crying that someone was selling their pictures. How much money was actually involved $100.00, $500.00, $1000.00? I’ll bet it was less than $100.00. All of this commotion for chump change! Some of you people need to get a life. I’m going to start posting a few more pics and if you want to sell the prints for a few cents, knock yourself out!

Babies crying? Hmm...I don't recall crying and further more this whole situation started from an illegal procedure. Also I feel you are addressing individuals that you have no connections to for reasons of insults. Just keep in mind, the whole thing could have been avoided had the guilty party paid attention to request to stop such illegal transactions.

BTW...."responce" is spelled response.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Malibu

[ptr250]

No you didn't cry. You just took all your toys (pics) and went home and pouted!