iPhone 3GS from AT&T. Free Shipping
Community Newsletter: Q&A: 10/3/06 Protecting your digital images from theft
- 10/5/06 4:56 PM
Code-protecting Individual Images on Other Websites
by wendyannh - 10/6/06 11:14 AM In reply to: Protecting images by warpcorecomputersHow do you apply code like that to individual images uploaded to someone else's website, like Flickr or the like?
Wendy
As far as I know
by tarasman - 10/7/06 4:04 PM In reply to: Code-protecting Individual Images on Other Websites by wendyannhyou are unable to..I use Photobucket to share silly images I find on the web or short-use graphics I make for online games I play, etc. Anything I want to protect, I use my host. Personally, I use www.qualityhostonline.com
..I have a noncommercial site, so the smallest package deal with 2 Ghz of bandwidth and 200 MB of space (99.99% uptime) works fine for me for $1.50 per month ($18.00 annual). It is affordable, and very easy for a novice to set up, even if picture sharing is all you are after.
That one's not free
by wresnick - 10/6/06 6:16 AM In reply to: protecting images by grandanoisWhen people claim that their software is free, but it turns out that only the 15 day trial is free, I have to question their ethics. Somebody thought enough of this software to give it one star on download.com. Nobody else thought enough of it to come back and rate it.
It might actually be perfectly fine software, but it's not one of the many free ones out there.
Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid
by inoshishi - 10/6/06 5:17 AM In reply to: 10/3/06 Protecting your digital images from theft by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
There is no point in hiding the copyright notice because you cannot hold a person liable for stealing something in the public domain that does not have any markings indicating that it does not belong there.
As anyone using the internet will know, photographs can travel very far from their original hosting web site, so placing the copyright infomation on your site does not help the person that stumbles upon the photograph somewhere else. Place a clear copyright message on the picture itself This can be done with even the most basic of photo editing tools and can be automated to run through a batch of photographs in some of the better tools.
Your copyright message can be discrete, so as not to detract from or spoil the photograph itself; or you can emblazen it across the photograph the choice is yours and depends on your application and purpose.
Many advanced photo editing tools can also add a watermark of your choice to your photographs. Watermarks can be visible or invisible. The purpose of a watermark is typically different from that of the copyright notice. The copyright mark on its own tells a person that you own the IP on the photograph. This of course would be cropped or photoshoped off by someone intent on stealing and using your photograph without acknowledging you, the owner. The watermark proves who owns the IP over the photograph.
Invisible watermarks tend to be scattered across the photograph so that it cannot be cropped or photoshopped off. Tools like photoshop us an algorithm to create pattern over the photograph using pixels colours close enough to the pixels around them not to be visible to the naken eye. Visible watermarks also tend to be pixel colour matched, but will have a faintly visible watermark feature (e.g. your logo or name) overlaid over the photograph (you could choose not to lay the watermark over the actual photograph, so as to preserve the main image).
Tools exist that attempt to prevent the theft of photographs from your web site by unauthorised persons. the effectiveness of these tools vary widely and most only make copying difficult and tedious, but not impossible. The simplest simply prevent the use of the right mouse button for accessing the browser page menu... but most browsers offer mechanisms or plug-ins that can harvest all multi-media content not only on a page, but on an entire web site if so desired... so my advice is to assume that your photographs will travel far and wide from the web site where you first place them.
The more advanced copy protection tools embed the photograph inside a browser embedded object, such as a Java or ActiveX applet, Flash widget, etc. In this instance, the viewer of your photographs is never actually viewing the actual photograph, but a projection of the photograph as rendered by the embedded viewer. While any screen capture tool can overcome such schemes (some copy protection tools will block the print screen key), the results of such are only suitable for viewing on the screen, so you could rest assured that at least you will not be seeing your photographs in printed media.
do you have any sort of legal citation for your claim?
by wresnick - 10/6/06 6:32 AM In reply to: Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid by inoshishi"There is no point in hiding the copyright notice because you cannot hold a person liable for stealing something in the public domain that does not have any markings indicating that it does not belong there."
Since this goes against everything I have read about copyright law, please provide me with a source to show that a photo without an embedded copyright notice is in the public domain. This will shock a lot of professional photographers. I always thought that a copyright notice on the web page itself took care of that, but if so much of the industry is wrong about that, I hope you can help straighten us out.
Copyright
by wendyannh - 10/6/06 12:06 PM In reply to: do you have any sort of legal citation for your claim? by wresnickAs a former sysop on an extremely busy system, and as an artist and designer, I've had reason to inform myself very, very well about copyright law in the US as they pertain both to the written word and to artistic creations.
The bottom line is that *all* creative work, in any medium, is *automatically* copyright to the creator, without any need to formally register the work anywhere, or to post a copyright notice. Such registration may *strengthen* one's claim to a particular work, but it is not considered necessary. Even things like your emails and letters to other people are automatically copyright - and so, of course, are photos, musical works, furniture designs - everything.
Under the doctrine of "fair use", a person may use a small portion of another person's work without permission, as long as it basically doesn't use enough of the original that it would dissuade someone from purchasing the original, or would basically reproduce the whole thing. This means you can use short quotations from written works, but not long ones.
It also means that, contrary to what someone else posted here, you *cannot* take another person's work and just change a small part of it and call it your own. You *may* take the small part and utilize it within something entirely new and different, but changing just one small thing while retaining the bulk of the original is a copyright violation just as surely as using the entire original to start with.
The US Copyright Office has full documentation of the above, and more.
Wendy
That's what I said
by wresnick - 3/7/07 10:08 AM In reply to: Copyright by wendyannhI agree with everything you said, but I was asking if there's any source that shows the opposite, as the OP had claimed. It's not as if I expected any. Since yours was the only response, I'll have to assume that the answer is no, and the claim that a photo without an embedded copyright notice automatically being in the public domain is absurd.
Copyright notices clearly visible?
by walkerdine - 10/6/06 7:28 AM In reply to: Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid by inoshishiThis is not the case. I do not need to tell anybody that my work is copyright. If I created it, then it is automatically my copyright. If someone then uses it without my permission they are breaking the law.
Putting something on the web is not the same as public domain. My web site is not a public domain, and the law is very specific about this. Generally for something to be in the public domain then the time for copyright protection will have passed. Today copyright will exist on all creations until 70 years after the originators death.
Of course, there are plenty of places where this will be of little concern, and plenty of people that will ignore the law, but it does not change it.
Public Domain
by walkerdine - 10/6/06 7:30 AM In reply to: Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid by inoshishiThis is not the case. I do not need to tell anybody that my work is copyright. If I created it, then it is automatically my copyright. If someone then uses it without my permission they are breaking the law.
Putting something on the web is not the same as public domain. My web site is not a public domain, and the law is very specific about this. Generally for something to be in the public domain then the time for copyright protection will have passed. Today copyright will exist on all creations until 70 years after the originators death.
Of course, there are plenty of places where this will be of little concern, and plenty of people that will ignore the law, but it does not change it.
Public Domain
by walkerdine - 10/6/06 7:38 AM In reply to: Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid by inoshishiPublic domain issues do not apply. For something to be in the public domain it usually implies that the period for copyright protection has expired. Currently 70 years after the death of the creator.
Web sites are not public domain. They can be seen by the public, but so can photographs in a shop window. They are still protected by copyright laws.
Advanced Copy Protection Tools
by wendyannh - 10/6/06 11:19 AM In reply to: Copywrite notices should be clearly visible to be valid by inoshishi>> The more advanced copy protection tools embed the photograph inside a browser embedded object, such as a Java or ActiveX applet, Flash widget, etc. In this instance, the viewer of your photographs is never actually viewing the actual photograph, but a projection of the photograph as rendered by the embedded viewer. While any screen capture tool can overcome such schemes (some copy protection tools will block the print screen key), the results of such are only suitable for viewing on the screen, so you could rest assured that at least you will not be seeing your photographs in printed media. <<
Could you share the names of some of these tools?
Thank you very much.
Wendy
Protecting ownership of digital images
by wildroot4 - 10/6/06 5:23 AM In reply to: 10/3/06 Protecting your digital images from theft by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
There is a software package available on CNET that imbeds a document into an image file. Only the party embedding it knows it exists. You might try it.
wildroot4
I can prove it's mine then what?
by nevido - 10/6/06 5:36 AM In reply to: 10/3/06 Protecting your digital images from theft by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've always held that if you put something online, you've given it to one and all so I've never put anything I value on the web. I've often seen commercial sites with graphics lifted from other sites. My question is, when you find something of yours on another site what can you do aside from asking them to take it down? Is the next step a lawyer or is there another (cheaper) option?
You already mentioned the cheapest option
by wresnick - 10/6/06 6:44 AM In reply to: I can prove it's mine then what? by nevidoIf you send an email saying that they are using your work without permission, that your graphics have embedded watermarks that prove ownership, and that you are willing to waive any payment if the graphics are removed immediately, then chances are extremely high that the images will come down quickly.
After all, if the person was not willing to pay in the first place, the person is certainly not willing to pay for the images and for a lawyer.
The most effective way is to send a certified letter written on an attorney's letterhead and mailed to them, or that can be done as the next step if the email fails. But it can't hurt to start with email.
If you've had this happen to you before, I'd suggest starting with the first step. Even if you don't have a watermark, the recipient of an email would not know that. The only issue with this is whether lying to a thief violates your personal standard of ethics, but aside from that, the person will know full well that he did not have the right to use the images.
What you can generally expect is a reply that says, "Sorry. The person who gave them to me told me that they were his. I took them down." Or it might have something similar claiming that the person was an innocent victim. You get the idea.
Then What?
by walkerdine - 10/6/06 9:41 AM In reply to: I can prove it's mine then what? by nevidoBasically you are right. Stick it on the web and it will be open to theft, and even if you can prove it's yours you may need to sue for damages. How much cash do you have in the bank?
I am a professional photographer and I repeat, "Do not put things on the web if you don't want people to steal them". It's that simple.
So, I do put images on the web, but they are protected as much as possible and, and this is the important bit, they are always of low resolution. So unless someone wants a poor quality picture I am fairly safe. those who would like the real article can contact me and arrange the correct fees, etc.
If you put it on the web it is no longer 'private' . Paste it to the top of your computer.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
