Online Photo Security

[Green Mountain Girl]

I just read an article in the Tutorials about protecting your images. It was quite interesting, and described some useful techniques. One that I am wondering about is disabling right-clicks. The article did not say anything about how this can be done. Can anyone tell me?

Thanks.
Susan

[Manfred M]

I just read an article in the Tutorials about protecting your images. It was quite interesting, and described some useful techniques. One that I am wondering about is disabling right-clicks. The article did not say anything about how this can be done. Can anyone tell me?

Thanks.
Susan

Susan - Nicely said in general you can't unless this is a feature of the code running on your website. Even if it is, this feature is extremely easy to defeat. The bottom line is that if you don't want to risk having your images used without your authorization, then don't post them.

The best advice I can give on protecting your images is to post low resolution images (a maximum dimension of 1600 pixels) will at least limit what the person stealing them can do with them. Embedding copyright information in the image is also fairly easy to do either in camera or with editing software (and I include this in all the images I post on line). At least you can go after the person who has stolen the image and prove that they have no right to your image.

[Steaphany]

A great resource for photographic copyright protection is The Copyright Zone

The American Society of Media Photographers also has a great Copyright Primer that also covers information on licensing

[William W]

. . .The bottom line is that if you don't want to risk having your images used without your authorization, then don't post them. . .

I agree. And I'd add - if you don't want to risk having your images used without your authorization, also don't provide image files to anyone and don't provide prints to anyone.

Copyright infringement is rampant: it is as simple as that. I think that in the main, most people are not aware they do it, or if they are aware they think that it doesn't really matter all that much.

I agree with Manfred to consider the RESOLUTION of the images one publishes on the www. Also consider WHAT one publishes on the www. If it's your business, then rather than spending money looking for and pursuing "all" your Copyright Violations, it's a more prudent business choice to factor an additional cost into the provision of images for the Client Groups who historically will be more likely to breach.

*

BTW - Embedded Copyright information in the image file is removable, sort of just as easy as getting around "disable right click" - but yes I agree often the thief doesn't remove it.

WW

[William W]

A great resource for photographic copyright protection is The Copyright Zone

I've participated in previous of their webinars. They are very good. Importantly, I noted, that they recognized from the get go that the Copyright Laws (in the USA) are not laws which are applicable, world wide.

WW

[Green Mountain Girl]

Susan - Nicely said in general you can't unless this is a feature of the code running on your website. Even if it is, this feature is extremely easy to defeat. The bottom line is that if you don't want to risk having your images used without your authorization, then don't post them.

The best advice I can give on protecting your images is to post low resolution images (a maximum dimension of 1600 pixels) will at least limit what the person stealing them can do with them. Embedding copyright information in the image is also fairly easy to do either in camera or with editing software (and I include this in all the images I post on line). At least you can go after the person who has stolen the image and prove that they have no right to your image.

Thank you for your comments Manfred! My understanding of website codes is pretty much nil. But I was hoping there was an easy explanation for the right-click.

Not being a professional, I still like to think I can protect my images to some extent. I like the idea of posting low resolution images, and thank you for giving me a dimension to use. I started using them for emails because AOL has a limit to the total size of photos attached. This made it possible to include multiple images without fear that the email would not get sent because the files were too big! But I was using 3000 pixels. Now I will change my method and use 1500 pixels. In addition to embedded copyright information, I also have a semi-transparent watermark, but have heard those also can be removed.

In this electronic world it is no fun not to be able to post my photos! So I will follow your suggestions and make stealing them less desireable...

[Green Mountain Girl]

A great resource for photographic copyright protection is The Copyright Zone

The American Society of Media Photographers also has a great Copyright Primer that also covers information on licensing

Steaphany, Thank you for providing these two excellent links. I am familiar with Edward Greenberg and Jack Rezniki (The Copyright Zone), having watched one of their videos on KelbyOne. I had not seen their website.

The other site is also interesting and informative. I will bookmark them so I can go back to them when I have questions.

Susan

[Manfred M]

Susan - the only additional suggestion would be that if you watermark your images, do so in an unobtrusive manner so that it does not detract from the overall appreciation of your image. It adds nothing to securing your image.

Take a look at this thread. Candid of my wife and son

The issue of watermarking was discussed here and there is an example of a watermarked shot, where I was able to remove the watermark in literally a few seconds.

[NorthernFocus]

Perhaps the best way to achieve some piece of mind regarding theft of one's work is an attempt to market it. The typical quality requirements and/or requirement for RAW files make low rez files virtually useless from a marketing standpoint. So as mentioned posting low resolution files is adequate protection. There are a few exceptions for wedding/portrait photographers, etc. With social media so prevalent and low resolution files being adequate for that medium, some potential sales can be lost if people can even link to images in a preview gallery.

[NorthernFocus]

Susan - the only additional suggestion would be that if you watermark your images, do so in an unobtrusive manner so that it does not detract from the overall appreciation of your image...

That is the catch 22 to this topic. Unobtrusive watermarks are easily removed or so unobtrusive that if someone simply wants to link an image on social media of their child scoring a goal, the watermark is useless. For that very reason when I do use a watermark it is intended to degrade the image. Or at a minimum gives credit for the image where it belongs.

[jcuknz]

If you want to publish photos that people can enjoy looking at on their monitors then I suggest 1600 is twice the size that is really needed... I have seen 1600 suggested for here at CiC but here at CiC we have pixel peepers.
If you do not wish to cater for PPs then I suggest that 700<800 is plenty big enough to enjoy the whole image even on my 23" monitor.

In addition to the pixel size of the image there is compression to consider and the file size you end up posting.... these days with broadband I have got 'lazy' but pre-BB I made sure that the file size was no more than 100Kb*.... that is currently the permitted max for images included in the thread at PhotoNet and other groups I belonged to previously but with some the pixel peepers encouraged management to raise the limit unfortunately because it is not needed.
*for emails I often posted at half or less ... even more appropriate in these days of ipads etc which many use to get their mail.

[Mike Buckley]

On this subject of security, there really isn't anything you can do if ISIS steals your photo, as explained here.

[billtils]

Interesting Q&A posts here.

As far as resolution for online posting goes - check the CIC instructions! They suggest 700px on the long side and I've yet to see anyone complain . A browse through the rules for some photography club site comps suggests not many want anything more than1024px long side.

In regard to security, if you post it, then it can be stolen (a bit like your hard drive - it's not "if" it will fail, but "when"). The best you can do is to think carefully about what you post and where. Mind you, if we are talking about what could be described as "no commercial value" images, it's easy to overdo it to the point of paranoia and the "when" mentioned two sentences earlier is most likely not in your lifetime unless you are considered to be a "celeb".

[Steaphany]

Another option you may want to consider is reviewing what restrictions the hosting site provides. I use and feel safe with the measures employed by 500px, which I use to exhibit my work, and Fine Art America, which I use for print sales. Both offer free and paid levels of membership.

For forum posts which are size limited, I turn to postimg.org who does nothing to secure files from being captured and downloaded.

If you check out my links in my signature, you can see for yourself what methods they utilize.

[William W]

. . . Mind you, if we are talking about what could be described as "no commercial value" images, it's easy to overdo it to the point of paranoia and the "when" mentioned two sentences earlier is most likely not in your lifetime unless you are considered to be a "celeb". . .

Copyright is and was intended to protect what we have come now to term "intellectual property".

Intellectual Property may never realize a 'dollar value', that's irrelevant.

One's car might not have a dollar value, but that doesn't lessen the wrong of someone else taking it out for a spin, without permission.

Any argument which is watered down to the sole premise of 'dollar value' and then hung on an hook of plaintiff paranoia, just makes improper behaviour easier to rationalize en masse:

"Copyright infringement is rampant: it is as simple as that. I think that in the main, most people are not aware they do it, or if they are aware they think that it doesn't really matter all that much. "

WW

[outwithmycamera]

I can't find the article just off the top of my head but the international committee that controls the jpeg format is or has been discussing adding DRM (Digital Rights Management) to the jpeg standard. I wonder if this sort of approach wouldn't cause more headaches than it would resolve.

[William W]

I can't find the article just off the top of my head but the international committee that controls the jpeg format is or has been discussing adding DRM (Digital Rights Management) to the jpeg standard. I wonder if this sort of approach wouldn't cause more headaches than it would resolve.

Try this

WW

[Steaphany]

Since it was rightly mentioned that US Copyright is not the same as else where, here are some for the UK:

The Design and Artists Copyright Society

and the

Intellectual Property Office

Plus, The Association of Photographers also has UK relevant Copyright resources