Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Copy protection: right-click disabling vs Digimarc  (Read 3680 times)
marimagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« on: August 16, 2012, 04:21:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I'm not sure this is the correct section to post this question. I've just created a website using a tool that claims that no gallery contents can be copied by viewers -right clicking is disabled by default. I can actually turn that feature off if I want to. All my photos have an embedded Digimarc watermark anyway. What should I do, use the right-click disabling feature or allow viewers to copy my photos knowing I'll be able to track them later on internet through my Digimarc ID? Thanks in advance for your answer, Marie
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2012, 04:49:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Forget the right click blocker. All it will achieve is to annoy people who want to do something as innocent as copy your contact details. Just limit the size of the JPEG and include a sensible visible watermark.
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2012, 05:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

People who copy images innocently for their amusement will be deterred by right click protection.  Those who want them for gainful reasons laugh at right click protection.  No image that can be seen on the screen is safe from copying by a minimally savvy web geek.  As mentioned already petite size is your best safeguard, with watermarking a distant second.
Logged
marimagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2012, 08:43:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you John and Bill for your answers! Marie
Logged
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2012, 12:35:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I can actually turn that feature off if I want to.

As can anyone else, simply by disabling javascript in their browser, Marie - as the others have said, as "protection", it's close to useless.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
marimagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2012, 03:30:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Keith! Some tool editors claim that their right-click protection cannot be defeated. So it's total BS then.
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2012, 03:34:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed - a big steaming pile of it! Anything that can be displayed on a screen can be got at, one way or another. Sometimes with less trouble and knowledge than others - but most of us know about the print screen key - which is where the watermark comes in handy. Small sizes defeat quality printing or re-use for commercial purposes.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2012, 04:59:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Rather than waste time with these right click tools, get thinking about the style of visible watermark and how you're going to add it most efficiently.

In terms of style /appearance, you need to add something that makes it time-consuming for someone to remove, and not worth the effort. But at the same time you don't want to insult every honest visitor by heavy copyright text or symbols which wreck the picture. It's a matter of finding a balance.

How you add the watermarks depends on what tools you use and the quantity of pictures. For example, Lightroom can export hundreds of JPEGs with matching watermarks, or you might create a Photoshop action for smaller numbers. Alternatively, if your site is hosted by someone like ZenFolio or SmugMug, you may find it better to upload images without watermarks. You can them upload a single copyright file and make the server add it to every image.

One other consideration is to ensure that your pictures contain all the IPTC metadata. If someone removes this information, it can be evidence of their malevolent intent.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 06:08:33 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

darlingm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 348


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2012, 12:13:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hitting the "Print Screen" key on your keyboard puts an image on your clipboard of the screen, which you can then paste into any image editor.  Granted, this captures the image at the resolution displayed on the screen which is only 72dpi, but many websites have web formatted images so they aren't sending a gigantic file to the user's browser that needs to then be resized each page view.  Anyways, no matter what's done in the browser, this will always work.  Even if using javascript is necessary to display the image, if someone's dedicated to doing it, there are ways to modify the javascript client side and disable the copy protection aspects but leave the image display aspects.  See Mozilla's FireBug add-on.
Logged

Mike Westland Printworks
Fine Art Printing Amazing Artwork Reproduction Photography
http://www.westlandprintworks.com (734) 255-9761
marimagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2012, 02:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Lois, John and darlingm for your feedback. I understand that the secret is a small file size, but what about Digimarc watermarks, do they really make a difference or are regular watermarks just as efficient? Marie
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2012, 04:43:19 AM »
ReplyReply

You don't really need it, Marie. The "secret" is not too big a file (eg no bigger than 1000 pixels), IPTC metadata, and a decent watermark.
Logged

marimagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2012, 12:35:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you John, you're right!
Logged
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2012, 12:50:02 AM »
ReplyReply

The other option is of course to accept that internet = image theft (many of us have had images misappropriated from the net) and live with it as a risk inherent in the online world.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2012, 01:31:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course it is. But you still take reasonable counter-measures.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2012, 03:12:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly what I'm not saying, John. Short of watermarking an image to the extent that it's not worth looking at much less stealing, nothing you can do will deter an even casually-interested image thief, so what's the point?

A few years ago, a pal of mine did a test: he downloaded one of his own files from the net (one of his images on this page - I don't recall which one) and Genuine Fractalsed it into a file which he then printed pretty big - A3 - and at A4. The bigger print was bloody good: not perfect, but more than good enough (I've seen worse sell), and the smaller one was excellent. It was - literally - an eye-opener

That told me all I needed to know. If a postage-stamp sized file could generate a good quality print, and I'm not prepared to deface my own images with dirty great watermarks, the only thing left is to accept that posting images online runs the risk of theft, and there's bugger all that can be done to prevent it except not to post.

I'll still chase down a stolen image if I find out about it, but there's no point whatsoever in trying to prevent it from happening because - the truth is - nothing works: so again, what's the point of wasting time and energy trying?

Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2012, 04:30:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Then I disagree.  With not much effort you can tip the balance in favour of not copying or misusing your images.
Logged

milt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2012, 12:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

A watermark has a psychological effect in making it perfectly clear that copyright is in effect.  I think this (probably small) deterrent is useful.  I don't see the point of a watermark that changes essential qualities of the picture in an attempt to render a copy useless.

--Milt--
Logged

Los Gatos, California | http://miltonbarber.com
Damir
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2012, 04:07:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hitting the "Print Screen" key on your keyboard puts an image on your clipboard of the screen, which you can then paste into any image editor.  Granted, this captures the image at the resolution displayed on the screen which is only 72dpi, but many websites have web formatted images so they aren't sending a gigantic file to the user's browser that needs to then be resized each page view.  Anyways, no matter what's done in the browser, this will always work.  Even if using javascript is necessary to display the image, if someone's dedicated to doing it, there are ways to modify the javascript client side and disable the copy protection aspects but leave the image display aspects.  See Mozilla's FireBug add-on.

It doesn't matter is it 72 dpi or 144 dpi - 800 x 600 is the same size on both resolution, as the 3000 x 2000 pix is the same size on both resolution.

As for what Keith wrote - chasing the stolen image on the web - why? If you don't want that someone use your image do not put it on the net - it is as simply as that. Why are you publish your image at the first place? Probably that as many persons as can see it. I have hundreds of images that are in my private archive, never published them until recently. My fear is not stolen image, but stolen idea. Some original images that I published was copied in terms of idea. Than I stop publishin images. After some time I realized that for public it is the same as I do not taking photos any more. I was concentrate on exhibitions only, than I need to promote my exhibitions, and for that I again need to publish photos around web sites.

We live in time where informations are shared, we can not escape from that, if you do not share it, it is like you do not exist. Sharing photos are OK that will give you wider attention, that is what you looking for at the first place, isn't it? Of course it is completly different situation if someone make profit with your work - than every one should react. So it is best to sign your photo before publishing and allow sharing for non commertial purposes without altering the photo or remove signature. That way you will have a lot attention over the www and lot of trafic on your page.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2012, 04:37:00 AM »
ReplyReply

"As for what Keith wrote - chasing the stolen image on the web - why? If you don't want that someone use your image do not put it on the net - it is as simply as that."

Oversimplification bordering on the naive?
Logged

Damir
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2012, 04:59:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Not likely. You do whatever you can, put watermark or signature, publish small picture and so on.

But chasing your pictures over the net is full time job, and probably wasting of time, and after all what can you done, writing mails to people all over the world to remove them from their sites, blogs or facebook accounts? Will you sue someone that put 800 x 600 picture on his blog, lives in some distant part of the world and not even speak your language??

That is naive, from my point of view. If someone download it and print it to put it on the wall you will not even know that. As I wrote - commertial use is something else, but this is much easier to detect than sporadic use of internet comunity. After all there is one company in Israel, can't rememr right now the name, google it, which can protect your picture even if someone edit it, change it or use only part of it or even as a tumbnail. But this is not free, so if you value your pictures soo much, use their services, invest in your protection.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad