Gregory Storm wrote:
Mark, I'm sorry, what we're you saying?

This took 15 seconds, including the time to reupload the images.

The one that say "protected?" was print screened.  The one with your tag and the added MM to show the image is not just coming from your site was Save Page As...

Not only does this "protection" software NOT do what you say it does, but  I can see that you took the photo with a 10D on 9/2/05.  Save your $14.95 and get your money back.

I should mention that I'm not using full power of html-protector. I could disable Opera so that you can't do a thing, but about 15% of my visitors use Opera and with 2000 unique visitors a day that's quite a nice number of people so I decided not to go that way. I know that opera can bypass scripts running on the page, but that's none of my concern. There are further protections available which I decided not to use. I care about countering 99% of attempts to steal my images and that I can easily achieve with the software that cost me $14.95. I'm more than happy.

MarkMarek wrote:

I should mention that I'm not using full power of html-protector. I could disable Opera so that you can't do a thing, but about 15% of my visitors use Opera and with 2000 unique visitors a day that's quite a nice number of people so I decided not to go that way. I know that opera can bypass scripts running on the page, but that's none of my concern. There are further protections available which I decided not to use. I care about countering 99% of attempts to steal my images and that I can easily achieve with the software that cost me $14.95. I'm more than happy.

How many of your visitors use Firefox, because it doesn't block screen captures.  It does seem to randomize direct saves, but the images are still downloadable.  I didn't check IE.

Brian Diaz wrote:
How many of your visitors use Firefox, because it doesn't block screen captures.  It does seem to randomize direct saves, but the images are still downloadable.  I didn't check IE.

As I mentioned, I'm not using all features of it, but it can easily counter 99% of all attmpts to steal stuff. Quite frankly, it was not image theft that made me buy it, it was page theft which i wanted to prevent. There was almost perfect copy of my website on line once and that pissed me off. I'm not a web programmer but I'm good enough to build my simple site the way you see it. But there's a lot of work in it and I don't want anyone copying it in its entirety. To be able to counter 99% of all such attempts for $14.95 - you spend more on Subway when you take a gf for sandwich and pop - is a great investment. And I could fully disable browsers which can disable scripts, but i don't care for protection that much. Bang for a buck that I'm getting is immense.

Ty Simone wrote:
...snip...
Try taking a screen shot of a DVD being played in a protected software program.
then paste that into paint.
then try to edit it....
you will see what happens....
That has to do with the picture control being on top.....
...snip...

MarkMarek wrote:
Check out my site Different Way Of Photography - I used HTML-Protector to perfectly secure it (btw I think their $14.95 special still goes for a few more days). It disables right click, but also prevets highlighting, copying, printing, print screen function, dragging and dropping, etc. and also encrypts your html code so the pages cannot be copied (or links to your pictures discovered by checking source code).

As noted, it does not prevent image theft at all. It does encrypt the pages, so that taking the page as-a-whole isn't practical, but the images can be trivially captured.

Anything that relies on a browser's behavior is suspect, as most browsers can be set to ignore those controls (turning off JavaScript, ActiveX, and Java, for example, will do this for most browsers.) Further, there are many non-"browsers" that are designed to send http protocols and capture the files references, without having to dig through the local cache. There are even free tools to take multiple slices on pages and recombine them into a single image.

None of these are hard to get--most are free--and few of them are hard to use.

A casual viewer will be deterred by disabling right-click, but more will be justifiably annoyed that they can't use context-sensitive buttons to open into tabs, new windows, or other right-click functions.

Ron B Blake wrote:

Depending on were your images are posted, you can have a no right click option that is NOT full proof for the experience liar

There is also three or four services out there that offer a hidden file that is embedded into the image non removable and tracks who has pulled an image off your site and were it is replaced

I hope this has helped

Sincerely
Ron Blake

Ron what happens if I press the print screen button?  At that point I can open it in pretty much any image manipulation sofware..  Do these strategies gaurd against that as well?  Also how can the images be tracked? What happens of I use an IP address other than my own and I change the image type?  If these strateiges gaurd against that - I'd like to know how to get em!!!!

Brian Diaz wrote:
Flash isn't theft-proof.

The only way to keep your photos from being stolen is not to put them on the Internet.

Putting photos on the Internet is like parking a convertible with the top down and the keys in the ignition.  Using deterrents (such as right-click blocking) is like locking the doors.

>The only way to keep your photos from being stolen is not to put them on the Internet< . Yes I agree .   No Right Click is not fool proof, just a deterrent as you said. People can  simply copy and pasting the image to a Photo editing program like PhotoShop  or Left click and drag the image to the IE tool bar where it will go to a temp folder . Then you can save it. The best idea is to upload low res images and put a watermark on them .   Also .. if you are that paranoid , dont't upload any nude shots, lol. I don't ,

Gregory Storm wrote:
JAY,

No matter what you do to THINK you are protecting your images, if they are online they can be taken.  The only safe way it to not have them online in the first place.

Things that will NOT protect your images online:
- Creating slices
- Using flash
- Digimarc (doubtful)
- right click disable
- Image replace script (like on IMDb images)
- insert your idea here

Those medthod can be defeated by clicking one button: print screen.

As far as adding all the paranoid information you put on your photos thinking that it can't be removed without messing up the picture, all your text is distracting from what could be a good image.

The image below took less than 2 minutes. 

quote]
Why thanks Greg for now making it much easier for every Tom, Dick & Harry to download that nude pic I shot and allow them to pretend it's theirs!  Paranoid?  Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're paranoid enough. 

Firstly, I am aware that there is no way to keep someone determined enough from stealing your images once they are online.  I wish some of you would give me more credit than that:

"If history teaches anything: it's that anybody, anybody can be killed."
- Al Pacino as Michael Corleone in "The Godfather II" (I hope I got the quote right)

Obviously, my images do me no good if confined to the safe boundaries of a shoe box: "You have to show work to get work".  In fact, on my main online portfolio I do encourage potential clients to download my images to keep as electronic leave-behind's.  There are a few model agencies that also encourage you to download from their websites.  As for that so-called "paranoid information you put on your photos thinking that it can't be removed without messing up the picture, all your text is distracting from what could be a good image" was originally intended to make sure people knew who took the picture and to contact me if they so desire.  Hmm, "messing up the picture"?  I think I get enough compliments and praise for my work to make said comment totally invalid.

I want to again thank those of you who've offered useful information and resources to make images more "secure" when presented online.

Best Regards,
JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:
Why thanks Greg for now making it much easier for every Tom, Dick & Harry to download that nude pic I shot and allow them to pretend it's theirs!  Paranoid?  Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're paranoid enough...  Hmm, "messing up the picture"?  I think I get enough compliments and praise for my work to make said comment totally invalid.

Of course you get compliments, but the comment is completely valid.  I didn't say it messed up the picture.  I said it was distracting.  If you notice, I wasn't the only one to point that out.  Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid.

As for "making it much easier for every Tom, Dick & Harry to download that nude pic" what was stopping them before?  As this thread should hopefully demonstrate there is nothing to really stop them.  With that said, I was only using it for illustration.  I've removed the pic.  You'll need to do the same from my quote.

G

Gregory Storm wrote:

Of course you get compliments, but the comment is completely valid.  I didn't say it messed up the picture.  I said it was distracting.  If you notice, I wasn't the only one to point that out.  Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid.

As for "making it much easier for every Tom, Dick & Harry to download that nude pic" what was stopping them before?  As this thread should hopefully demonstrate there is nothing to really stop them.  With that said, I was only using it for illustration.  I've removed the pic.  You'll need to do the same from my quote.

G

The other reason I put text on my images is to show that they can work with text (i.e. can be used in ads) in them.  Fashion Photography is the bastard child of art & commerce (hence the name of one of the premiere photographer's agencies Art+Commerce) - the photography is the art, the text is the commerce.  I hope I don't sound like I'm belittling the good people of MM, but the opinion that matters most to me (as it should to anyone aspiring to a professional career in photography) is that of the art directors, magazine editors and other creative professionals who can give you work.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Brian Diaz wrote:
Flash isn't theft-proof.

The only way to keep your photos from being stolen is not to put them on the Internet.

Putting photos on the Internet is like parking a convertible with the top down and the keys in the ignition.  Using deterrents (such as right-click blocking) is like locking the doors.

Well put Brian. It is true that flash web sites are a lot harder to take images from - a good car alarm - but they too can be reverse engineered.

Vita Brevis wrote:

I did, Mark...it doesn't work.  The images are in my cache..I'd ask for your money back.

Double that..I just did it too

saunders photography wrote:
when posting pictures the image resolution is way to small for anyone to really steal your images, any  photoshop person can modify the water marks, but since web only does 72 dpi even large pics on the web can only be printed the size of half of a wallet so even posting large files onlone , nobody can really "steal" them they might claim it, but theyll never have a master file to back it up

Yes but if the images are being used on another web site, that 72 dpi isn't a problem.

saunders photography wrote:
when posting pictures the image resolution is way to small for anyone to really steal your images, any  photoshop person can modify the water marks, but since web only does 72 dpi even large pics on the web can only be printed the size of half of a wallet so even posting large files onlone , nobody can really "steal" them they might claim it, but theyll never have a master file to back it up

On the web, DPI means nothing.

200x300 pixels at 72 DPI on the web is exactly the same as 200x300 pixels at 300 DPI: it's just a 200x300 pixel image.