Protecting images from copying
Hello All,
Can anyone tell me how you can place images on your site but protect them from being copied?
Thanks
D
Hello All,
Can anyone tell me how you can place images on your site but protect them from being copied?
Thanks
D
pcmedicplus posted this at 13:25 — 7th September 2006.
He has: 49 posts
Joined: Mar 2006
There are alot of ways of doing it. I like doing it with an .htaccess file and point it to a stolen image.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?YourWebsite.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule \.(gif|jpg)$ http://www.YourWebsite.com/stealing.gif [R,L] Options All -Indexes
Options All -Indexes
Though I would not suggest trying to stop your images from being copied for these reasons.
1. When your website gets cached the images are going to show your stealing.gif rather than your actual gifs.
2. Images do tend to draw traffic to your site.
3. Placing a watermark on your image is a much better way to go.
portafire.net | spoogenet.com
Greg K posted this at 16:15 — 7th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
The watermark suggestion, IMO, is your best bet. You are never going to get the images from being copied. The suggested code only protects from people linking directly to your images, not from copying them.
-Greg
Renegade posted this at 19:57 — 7th September 2006.
He has: 3,022 posts
Joined: Oct 2002
To be honest, if you don't want people to copy your images, don't put them up on the internet
pcmedicplus posted this at 02:13 — 8th September 2006.
He has: 49 posts
Joined: Mar 2006
Nice Renegade, Classic, Don’t help the guy just give it to him straight up and rude.
Greg, Exactly what I was trying to state in my post. You can not stop anyone from coping your pics, and have stated there are many ways to try, but posted the .htaccess because I believe it is copying, not duplicating, but worse, they are using your ban width to show your image. Stealing is stealing and by using the pic and linking directly to it, IMO is stealing two fold, hence is why I find it more Offensible and posted that instead of suggesting ways to stop the copying. You can at least prevent that. I had stated in point 1 and 2 why I think even that would not be a good idea but that has to be the webmasters call.
The watermark suggestion I made on point 3 is the easiest way. If you are a photographer or a graphics artist and that is your lively hood and you have the money to purse and prosecute, then the best way is to embed 128bit encrypted password protected hidden text into the image. All you need is “Property of WhateveryourWebsite.com ” with a non hidden disclaimer on your website that states to not copy or duplicate. It’s not hard to do and I use it on my websites as well.
The point all of you are missing is simple, for Graphic artist and Photographers, is this is there lively hood. By simply posting and I quote “To be honest, if you don't want people to copy your images, don't put them up on the Internet” is not a sutible answer. It’s like telling Music muscians if they don’t want there songs and albums pirated then don’t make them.
Lost in a world of madness.
portafire.net | spoogenet.com
Todmeister posted this at 04:38 — 8th September 2006.
He has: 19 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
#s 1 & 3 are the best way to go, if the MFGR doesn't provide any pics!
And maybe the 128bit encryption thing if you truely have something
artistically unique.
But a manufacturer shouldn't worry about protecting anything but
they're ban width, watermarking would be questionable; seems
the MFGR would want the retailers selling they're product using
quality pics to represent that product! But I suppose you could
watermark it to let the public know it's an official MFGR product pic,
kinda like the removable tag on a pair of Levi 501 jeans!
Besides, if all the retailers are using the same MFGR pics, the product
will sweep the internet becoming more recognizable to the public
Quicker!!!
T'Meister...
[URL=http://webpages.charter.net/todmister ]View My Webpage[/URL]
Derek posted this at 10:26 — 8th September 2006.
He has: 16 posts
Joined: Jul 2006
"The point all of you are missing is simple, for Graphic artist and Photographers, is this is there lively hood. By simply posting and I quote “To be honest, if you don't want people to copy your images, don't put them up on the Internet” is not a sutible answer. It’s like telling Music muscians if they don’t want there songs and albums pirated then don’t make them."
Thanks for that PCmedicplus, the thing is that I am not a proper techie, I just work with them, and sometimes like to check over what I am asking them for with some experts - yes, your good selves!! I just come here to learn.
I think it'll have to be watermarks, the issue is for one tiny part of the site and yes it is a graphic artist request...they seem to think that on an older version of the site (long since gone) their images were 'protected'. And unless I confirm that this is possible they didn't want to let me put them on the website (even though you can easily see the same thing on lots of sites from the same industry.....)
Thanks,
D
Greg K posted this at 15:56 — 8th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
One thing you may want to try is to look up the old ocopy of the site if possible at http://web.archive.org/collections/web/advanced.html
Worth a look. If you happen on the old site and the images ARE there, well then, you will be able to show them they were not protected.
-Greg
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 19:34 — 8th September 2006.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Actually, it's like telling musicians that if they don't wish their copyright violated, don't publish downloadable tracks on the web.
When an image is viewed online, it has to be copied, whether you like it or not, so that the client can display it. That is how HTTP web browsing works.
The artist's livelihood is already protected by the fact that web quality renditions of media are poor anyway. Adding more noise to the image, like watermarking, is an option, but I think that it's not any more beneficial.
Perhaps the artist could consider a reasonable approach to the matter: treating their skill as their primary asset rather than the products they make. That means publishing their works ("intellectual property") freely online, while generating income from services rendered, premium perks etc. Redistributed copies of their works could make for good advertising, so it remains gainful.
Anyhow, please avoid the term "pirated". It conjures up images of swords, eyepatches and crossbones. Violating copyright is illegal, however it is not murder and theft on the high seas. Arr!
pcmedicplus posted this at 02:04 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 49 posts
Joined: Mar 2006
Quote : "Actually, it's like telling musicians that if they don't wish their copyright violated, don't publish downloadable tracks on the web."
Nice try but I don't think the musicians are publishing the majority of the downloadable tracks. LOL
Quote : "When an image is viewed online, it has to be copied, whether you like it or not, so that the client can display it. That is how HTTP web browsing works."
Thanks for explaining how HTTP web browsing works, Being in the I.T. field for over 18 years I would never had know that.
From dictionary.com
v. pi·rat·ed, pi·rat·ing, pi·rates
v. tr.
1. To attack and rob (a ship at sea).
2. To take (something) by piracy.
3. To make use of or reproduce (another's work) without authorization.
I'll give you the whole "please avoid the term "pirated"....... not murder and theft on the high seas"
but seeing how I’m old school and been in the field since you were in diapers. I think Ill stick with Pirated.
As for this Quote: "The artist's livelihood is already protected by the fact that web quality renditions of media are poor anyway."
I have no idea how many Graphic Artist or Photographer's you have worked with, but they guard their work with the greatest passion I have ever seen. The only way to protect their work and have legal footage to do so has already stated.
"The watermark suggestion I made on point 3 is the easiest way. If you are a photographer or a graphics artist and that is your lively hood and you have the money to purse and prosecute, then the best way is to embed 128bit encrypted password protected hidden text into the image. All you need is “Property of WhateveryourWebsite.com ” with a non hidden disclaimer on your website that states to not copy or duplicate. It’s not hard to do and I use it on my websites as well. "
Sorry if so many Moderators here take offense of my posting’s but I call it like I see it.
portafire.net | spoogenet.com
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 04:08 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Exactly. Whereas the artist in this thread's discussion is publishing the majority of their downloadable works. See how your original analogy fails?
You sure don't seem to be reasoning as if you know it. Thought you needed reminding. It's for the benefit of other readers too.
Actually, you don't seem to be reasoning at all. Older is not necessarily better -- your argument is fallacious.
Such use of the term 'pirated' was invented by an emotional and offended poet who obviously found a colourful but inaccurate way of describing the crime. I don't believe it is helpful to treat the issue in the same manner anymore.
I know they do. That doesn't mean they have to continue. Fast and cheap internet hasn't been available ubiquitously for very long. Artists' traditional culture of protection may be well-founded in the corporeal world, but low marginal utility in copying digital works on the internet calls for a more sensible and imaginative approach altogether. It must be obvious that jailing their works is simply not very successful, as the music industry vs. sharing has shown.
I am not offended. You just don't see very well, so you're calling it poorly, I think. As moderators, we try to correct this as best we can by responding with our opinions.
P.S.: Maybe your 18 years of experience can help you find the "quote" tag and buttons to use when quoting another post. Makes it much easier to quote you again, as not all the text becomes duplicated.
Todmeister posted this at 07:07 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 19 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
To start with, the term is "Piracy" & dates back over 3000 years. It's a term that was recognized internationally & used World Wide; not just then, but to date as well ! You will find it's not just used in history books, but used & defined in legislation as well, throughout World!
So to deny or argue the use of the term is nothing more than a personal regressive whim
Ok, I agree that wasn't stated properly; "it's like telling musicians that if they don't wish their copyright violated, don't publish music period!" would have been the way to state it! He needs to improve on such things, for some people are incapable of reading between the lines?
Fallacious – adjective
1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.
3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.
fallacious? lol, read the facts I openned with, then the following quote & then state "who's really being fallacious?"
Actually, the whole music piracy fight has lead to new laws as well as new intuitive ideas like rapsody, Ipod ..... so it is clearly better not to "go gently into the night!"
Well he is getting old so his sight may be getting poor, not sure? But I hope I was able to enlighten your opinion, correcting it if only just slightly, enabling you to better respond as a moderator!?
I this were football, the above quote would be view as an offensive play! But I'm sure if you were the lead tech at a 5 star bank righting scripts to get around MS global policies & decide to reply to a thread "between scripts" you might cut a few corners too!
Maybe you can help me with this? He's been messing with me & won't tell me what the following says.
can you enlighten me?
[CONTENT DELETED]
would be much appreciated
T'meister...
[URL=http://webpages.charter.net/todmister ]View My Webpage[/URL]
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 08:12 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Whoa, cool down.
I said such use of the term -- that is, in the context of "intellectual property", not of robbery at sea -- was invented relatively recently. I am not aware of any pre-Victorian historical texts that use the term in such non-metaphorical fashion.
Of course it is personal and retrogressive. However, I contest that it is a mere whim. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the term's connotations, I do not believe its use can be constructive in a rational discussion on this topic. Just because it has become institutionalised (credit to lobby groups with special interest) does not deny that.
No, I was pointing out a logical dissonance, not simply a syntactic one. The analogy fails, since
publishing an imageandpublishing a trackcan be equated, andcreating an imageandcreating a trackcan also be equated, whereaspublishing an imageandcreating a trackcannot.It is indeed fallacious to argue that just because something is older (or newer) it is better. This is called "appeal to tradition" (or "appeal to novelty").
I presume you are trying to suggest I was being fallacious somehow; I would appreciate substantiation of this instead of just a rhetorical question.
Why not? You cannot say that it is the resistance of copyright holders to copyright violation that brought about these overdue innovations. It could very well be due to demand for better models of distribution, which I could even posit has been impeded by the "fight".
In fact, the "fight" from the industry has catalysed wretched innovations, such as DRM and Trusted Computing.
I appreciate your effort! I have certainly learned some new things from your post, and welcome your contribution to TWF.
Well, I took pcmedicplus's remark about my youth (and diapers) as a signal that they were at ease with playful comments about age. I took no offence from their quip and hope they take none from mine.
I do not base any of my arguments on corners cut, either.
I don't follow. Who has been messing with you?
DC_Sara posted this at 12:46 — 8th September 2006.
She has: 392 posts
Joined: Jan 2002
I watermark things, but honestly, if it means that much to you, then don't put it on the web. People will take things that don't belong to them. I use .htaccess as well and have watermarked also in the past. I guess it depends on what you are putting on your site and why. When we owned a hosting company we put the graphics on the web and weren't worried about anyone taking them. I have a business and I just put the graphics up there for the site, but for the portfolio I watermarked everything. I actually did it in a pop-up window and put a few graphics together in one big square then watermarked each row, it was simple to do and really almost invisible until you took the entire graphic, then you saw it. It still showcases what I want to be seen though, to get the message across.
Hope this helps, not just a ramble...
~*Sara*~
demonhale posted this at 11:16 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Let me put my 2cents in, since pretty much theres the suggestions of watermarking which is pretty much how others do it even stock photo sites, then theres also the good suggestion of protection from hotlinking, then inserting binaries to the picture code etc...
The main concern of what most people here posted is that any kind of creative artwork maybe stolen in the web, thats just how things work... concepts can be stolen, color combinations, and even layout can be stolen, graphics are the most easily stolen in the lot. If the theif pursues your work enough, they could copy it, either by hand or whatever... As mainly a graphic artist, I need to put something to show as a portfolio as a gauge of my abilities, and it doesnt help to just think people will start copying my work, it happened to me here at the forums, someone needed a logo, posted a suggestion image, and he copied it outrightly without permission, if I know he was worth the hassle, I could have sued him since I know the site anyway... but I choose not to, since I can do a much better job of what he has stolen...
Its a good suggestion that whatever graphic you put on the site, even if they copy it, they still cant get the concept and creativity of the person doing it. I could 1 up them of a better design all the time... So what I post now are copyrighted or sold graphics. So if they decide to copy it, in the future the company that bought it from me decides to sue them, theyll have their rats off to pay for more than what they bargained for, it happened once and it can happen again...
Greg K posted this at 14:33 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
First off, thank you demonhale for getting this thread back on topic. It is sad to see that once again another thread gets off topic and becomes not much more than a "let me prove you wrong and sound like I know more than you" match, which only serves to distract from the orignal topic of the thread, and IMO help discourage newer visitors from staying let alone posting.
Please keep the messages ON TOPIC and WITHOUT PROFANITY (even if it is encoded).
Now back on topic...
One of the first sites I did for someone "professionally" was a friend's site for her artwork. The images on the site were of actual paintings, photos, and sketches, and since this was back in the days of a 640x480 display, they were not that large in size. But still they found their way being both linked to from other sites, and seen placed on other people's sites.
I tried all kinds of methods to prevent this, learning as I went. What did I learn? That no matter how good you do it, they will still get it, and in fact the only people you discourage from grabing the images, are the ones who are so inexperinced, they are no threat to begin with, and that a threatening e-mail would cause them to remove it anyhow.
I feel it does come down to the fact that you will as an artist have to resolve yourself to the act that, unfortuently, some people will take the images, and if you can't deal with that, then you shouldn't publish. However I hope for the sake of artisty, most people can accept this and keep publishing. No I don't mean accept it and just let people do it, I mean accept it will happen and need delt with without freaking out. Keep in mind that (IMO) a lot of the poeple who do copy images don't stop and think about what they are really doing. Yes they realize it is copying, but don't think of how it is wrong.
So if you do use the method of displaying an alternate image if someone else directly calls it from your server, or you send off an e-mail to someone who stole a copy, try to present it in a way that will inform the person, not jsut threaten them. Usually with the site I maintained, the artist I did the site for didn't mind people using the images, as long as they provided the copyright info and a link back to her site and/or used an alternative smaller image or one with a copyright displayed in the image. I'd say that 99% of the people contacted either accepted these terms or removed the image. Only twice did i have to resort to something like renaming the image on the site, and replacing the orignal with an image that was red text on a yellow background saying "This image was stolen from ....." so that the message displayed on someone else's site. (Hey, I didn't know about mod rewrites or server side languages back then).
Again, this was like back in 1998 i think it was, and the web is vastly different now, and there is a whole new web generation who just don't care. IMO it is still worth the time to help them understand. Now after you ask them nicely, and they still won't listen, well then different tactics can be gone after
-Greg
Todmeister posted this at 19:05 — 9th September 2006.
He has: 19 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
I sincerely apologize for any profanity unknowingly use; pcmedicplus finally informed me what the code said "while L HisAO" I've been trying to get pcmedicplus to tell me what it said every since he posted it on this gaming forum we frequent. I was sincere when I posted it asking for it to be decoded, but wouldn't have, had I known it contained profanity! I will be more carefull in the future.
sincerely,
T'Meister
ps. on the second page on the link above "since it does relate to thread topic" there's an ecrypted pic w/ password posted that no one has cracked yet, if someone would like to try? Tho pcmedicplus has not informed me what the encryption says, he ensures me it contains no profanity.
again, I apologize
[URL=http://webpages.charter.net/todmister ]View My Webpage[/URL]
mandyjb posted this at 00:51 — 17th September 2006.
She has: 164 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
There is a way to stop people copying images.
1. Go to fireworks
2. create blank image (transparent) save as 'blank.gif'
3. create a layer over the image
4. Insert the blank.gif (transparent) over the image
When someone tries to save and copy your image all they get is your blank.gif
Try this and see.
Mandy
Greg K posted this at 01:36 — 17th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Mandy, give me a URL to a site with a sample of your protection, and I'll bet I can post a copy of your protected image here.
-Greg
mandyjb posted this at 02:07 — 17th September 2006.
She has: 164 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
This is the formula you wanted proving, granted if using a screenshot capture, it is unavoidable but, for the casual copier this has proven to be a time consuming deterrent, and as we all know that the more time someone has to spend gaining something the less they are interested and will move on.
URL for image below:
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/image_test/test.html
Greg K posted this at 02:18 — 17th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
It was as simple as choosing VIEW->Page Style->No Style to separate them. I did a right click and VIEW IMAGE to come up with http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/image_test/graphics/test1.jpg
Another method would be to do VIEW SOURCE and see the name of the file
Another would be save the web page to your hard drive.
Just as effective as the "Disabling Right Click", only going to stop the people who are so new a e-mail threatening them to stop would most likely work.
Now that being said, it is usuable, just thought it was mistitled by being labled as "There is a way to stop people copying images.", becasue it doesn't stop it, but a good deterent against beginner theifs
mandyjb posted this at 02:26 — 17th September 2006.
She has: 164 posts
Joined: Aug 2006
Granted, for the determined thief then there is no true way of image theft no matter what. But, I do believe this can help slow them and make them take more time to discover how to get around it, and as we all know, the more hurdles you put in place the more they have to work and more likely to give up. Especially for the casual thief.
There are many ideas for protection, but combining them all is probably the best way although it can mean a little extra work load.
Thanks for the challenge, found some interesting info.
Mandy
pcmedicplus posted this at 17:19 — 10th September 2006.
He has: 49 posts
Joined: Mar 2006
cut him some slack, He did not know what he was coping and pasting!
As far as the "let me prove you wrong and sound like I know more than you"
I do not think anyone was doing that.
“Well, I took pcmedicplus's remark about my youth (and diapers) as a signal that they were at ease with playful comments about age. I took no offence from their quip and hope they take none from mine. ”
None taken.
“P.S.: Maybe your 18 years of experience can help you find the "quote" tag and buttons to use when quoting another post. Makes it much easier to quote you again, as not all the text becomes duplicated. ”
I don’t use them for a reason.
Back on Topic.
All I was getting at was reiterating that there is no way to stop it but there are ways to help you in a legal fight to prove they are your pictures. By simply stating not to put them on the internet was just not a complete answer for me. Have a good weekend all, What’s left.
portafire.net | spoogenet.com
autoecart posted this at 22:30 — 10th September 2006.
They have: 24 posts
Joined: Sep 2006
Watermarking is best but make sure you place it in an area with lots of different colors and shades cause if you place it in an area that is one color all they have to do is color over it with one line of color and your watermark is gone.
I need link exchangesA Myspace Layout
Arch posted this at 00:40 — 13th September 2006.
They have: 31 posts
Joined: Sep 2006
I've ran into problems with people stealing pictures off the site I run. I really don't think there's an absolute way to prevent them from stealing, but only to slow them down a bit. Watermark is the best, as mentioned by other forumers. I also put a disclaimer about stealing pictures and respecting copyrighted properties. Preventing people from right-clicking is also employed:
<body text="#C0C0C0" bgcolor="#000000" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" rightmargin="0" oncontextmenu="return false">'Lastly, I put a .htaccess file to prevent filenames of pictures from being listed. I've confronted someone online over taking my pictures without my permission or acknowledging where it came from, but I was nice about it.
andy206uk posted this at 13:51 — 17th September 2006.
He has: 1,758 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
A friend of mine asked me about this the other day. His only concern was the common 'right click > save as...' method for stealing images and I suggested the following. It's similar to your method but instead of putting a layer over the image, you asign the real image as a background to a semi transparent png watermark. The code looks like this:
<style type="text/css">
img.house {
background: #fff url("house.jpg") scroll no-repeat bottom right;
}
</style>
<img src="watermark.png" width="640" height="480" class="house" />
It gets round the disabling css problem because if they disable the css they loose the image they want to steal! IE users get a transparent image but no watermark (which can be got around with a hack I believe). The only way around it is to either do a print screen (which means they get the watermark as well) or get into the source code find out where the image is and download it manually.
The last part could be stopped too, by using a php script to generate the image using GD from a file OUTSIDE your public web/httpdocs directory and check the refering script. If it's not your master page - don't render the image
You can see it in operation here (minus the php part):
http://bomb.org.uk/test/watermark/watermark.html
What do you guys think? Can you think of any other ways to get around it?
Andy
Greg K posted this at 16:55 — 17th September 2006.
He has: 2,145 posts
Joined: Nov 2003
That loks like a pretty good method, and probably combined with the php code would work well. I thought maybe doing a SAVE AS of the web page would include all files, but in both IE and Firefox it looks like it ignores grabbing any files called from CSS.
-Greg
andy206uk posted this at 18:08 — 17th September 2006.
He has: 1,758 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
Sweet... If it works that well I should probably knock up the code and write a tutorial and get this handy method out in the public domain
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.