protecting a few online photos from being copied

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 03:21 pm
I'm about to put most of my photos into places like facebook and flicker (opinions on which of those is better, or any other suggestions, picasa?, are welcome. I have a great many photos, even edited down.
This will take a while, as I'll have to scan and scan and scan and scan. Still, I have to start that sometime...

But I've a few photos I really want to have strong control of. Say, less than ten.
Most of those are italy photos or architecture/cityscape photos, but one is..
a photo of women in the thirties roller skating. One woman is my mother, and there are a few other women, but one more interesting to the curious - Marilyn Monroe's mother. Let's say I'd at least like to insure source credit for that.

I know there's a way to put a name or mark on a photo, but I also figure there is way to photoshop that out. I don't know how to i.d. like that in the first place, and would like comments on how you do that, what method is best. I'm mixed, since I'm not sure I believe that works, and it "ruins" the photo.

I know there are some tightly run photo web sites, an architectural one coming to mind, but I can't (I don't think) set up something like that on my own.

Then there is the philosophic question of whether it is a quixotic endeavor to want to control a photo, or, if not quixotic, conceptually repellant to do so.

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 03:38 pm
I say strong control - as if I didn't care about the rest, but I do. I try to give photo credits when I post photos, or have the url clear upon clicking. I do particularly care about a certain bunch of my own photos..

0 Replies
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 04:14 pm
My suggestion is to find someone who has their own website who can add html to that site to disable right click and screen copy ( to what ever extent screen copy can be stopped)


With facebook, flicker, picasa, myspace and anything else, all you have to do is right click , copy image, paste.
Or, zoom in, screen copy, paste.

There are a few tricks to html that you have control over on a website that you can edit...but not on the sites you are looking to use.
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 04:27 pm
Thanks, shewolf.
Which reminds me, I tried to send you a note on (flicker?) once - but never followed up to see if you got it, a while ago now. It was about some photo contest..

That gives me a clue, your reference to html - maybe I have to do my own site, which could be interesting, learning, learning.
I'd do that off the bat if I didn't think it would be punitive re money. People offset website costs with ads, yes, but let's figure mine wouldn't be a netgrabber.
I figure if I had room, that set of ten photos would grow.

I assume - dunno - that websites add up per page, so a small one would be x dollars, and one for many many photos would be xxxxx dollars. Is this true?
I presuppose doing it myself, a potentially hilarious trial, but conceivably possible, given I like simplicity, a certain spare (er, elegant) style. One might not guess that by my posts on a2k.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 04:47 pm
I have not signed into flicker in......


so no I probably have not seen your note.
( Off to look)

As per website stuff...PM.
0 Replies
ebrown p
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:02 pm
Sorry Osso, but the right-click tricks don't work (against anyone but the most non-technical users).

There is no way to stop screen copy (which is the simplest way to copy your pictures)-- and there are lots of other ways to get the picture for people who are slightly technical.

The basic rule is-- if you can see it, you can copy it.

What you might want to look into is digital watermarking. This is a way that you can put an invisible mark in your picture (or a visible one). Math geeks have come up with ways to do this that are both imperceptible and difficult to remove.

I know a company called "Digimarc" does this provides a professional solution. I think they charge a couple hundred dollars a year. This would probably be the best (i.e. hardest for someone to remove)-- but I don't know if this would be worth it too you.

I did a quick Google of "digital watermark". Unfortunately I didn't find any free programs that did this-- I found a couple of howto pages for Photoshop techniques that involves adding hidden text. This doesn't like it would be too strong, but perhaps better than nothing.

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:38 pm
@ebrown p,
Watermark, that was the word I was after.

It might be worth it for that one photo, ebrown.. one can see the resemblance and it is not unsexy, (I was reminded when I saw the bathing suit thing on HuffPo today.) And then I could use the invisible digital thing for some others, as long as I had the option. (I didn't know you could do invisible).

I'm not interested in selling rights to this, etc. It's a photo of my mother and her pals from work, at least one other I could name. (oh, and then, permission?, presumably from heirs? talk about a task). Selling is not appropriate. But I can see it being picked up online as of interest, and I would feel like a chump if that happened. Well, not if it happened, precisely, but if it was exploited.

Alternately, I sort of hate to have it just die with me, as it's cool.
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:51 pm
Maybe I should look at the auction places, establish creds with them. But that's not the point either.

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 06:15 pm
I'd like people to enjoy the photo, for itself, a moment in time, but if anyone would go making money off of it, I'd be kerflotzed.
I suppose it could be ignored, but I doubt it.

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 06:37 pm
If unauthorized commercial reproduction is your main concern, the most likely offenders against your wishes will probably know ways around any protection you can realistically set up. In my opinion, your best option is to publish the photos in a size that's large enough to be viewed with pleasure, but small enough to be too pixelish for commercial reproduction. Anything between 400 x 600 pixels and 600 x 800 pixels seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 07:19 pm
I see I didn't thank you for that suggestion, Thomas - sorry!
0 Replies

Related Topics

YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
  1. Forums
  2. » protecting a few online photos from being copied
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/06/2023 at 11:01:41