Photo theft from online gallery, thoughts?

[staereo]

I am curious on ideas to handle image 'theft'. I just did a 3 day event, and I am selling my images (at a very reasonable rate). The purchasers primarily purchase the images to add to their own memory books and portfolios.

To get around people just arbitrarily downloading my images, I made the images capped at 500 by 700. Thinking it would be smart, I disabled the download feature in my web software. Sooo, instead it seems people are taking screenshots then getting their pictures that way.

I would like to avoid writing proof over the top of each one. I dont particularly mind my images being in their web gallery, and web sized, but I would have liked to have control over where they went. Luckily, one person that chose to do this added a credit line to my site (yay) so I dont feel like I should be cruel to them, but the site has a copyright tag on it saying that all images are copyrighted. Yet, it seems to me they copied them. Im not sure whether to pursue this (as I will have the same customer base next year, and would like to remain a good guy), or let it go and be thankful they put a credit line in their web gallery? (and hope noone downloads it from their gallery and reposts it and so on.)

Another problem I have is print orders. People are scanning them, editing them by adding their OWN logo, then putting them in their gallery, after SIGNING an order form that also states agreed upon terms of no scanning, copying, displaying in gallery, no editing, etc, etc.... Again, is this something worth pursuing?

Im very new to having my work so.. exposed and out and around, so Im not sure what is considered kosher and 'expected' loss of control.

Thanks for your help,
Bruce

[basroil]

sounds like these are great pictures for people to be going out of their way to steal it. i have no idea how to judge the second part, but for digital side, you may want to look towards a directshow based flash application. directshow has the handy ability to display a black (or other color/graphical) section where the image would normally be seen if screenshotted. it will prevent mac and linux users from being able to acess the images (you can modify the flash so if the OS is other than windows it can display the images normally with PROOF stamped over them). if you know about making flash applications, or have connections and are willing to use them, this would probably make the most sense. it will also slightly decrease bandwidth useage which means cheaper bills at the end of the month if you are already on the boarder.

[staereo]

oiy.. im so not tech based.

this is what im using, this is the gallery:
http://www.bruceobryan.com/albums/AnimeBoston2006/

Its flashed, but im kinda having a hard time figuring out what the directshow thing would be that I would get.
(youll also notice fairly reasonable prices....)
Thanks again for your time,

[sando]

I think you've just realised why you need to use very low-res small images on your website. Either that or you have to add a watermark.

Or both :lol:

I'd contact them all, using a soliciters letter headed sheet of paper, highlighting the wording of the order form.

[ssim]

There has been lengthy discussions here about the value of watermarking your images with "proof" or something else. I do it for that very reason that it inhibits (it will never stop) people from grabbing them off your site. If they want to go to all the work to clone out my watermark then they must be very desperate and want the image more than I need it. I make small and unobtrusive enough that it is not all that noticeable but if you went to print it, then it would be noticeable. In any event, this will certain slow this down.

I'm not sure how you stop people from taking a print (I'm assuming that you sold at least one for them to get it) and scanning it. You certainly can't leave a watermark in a sold image.

I certainly wouldn't let it slide. You have to confront them to a certain degree as a minimum or they will just continue when you do it again next year. I realize that you said you want to work with them again and you can let by-gones be by-gones and tell them this is a huge no-no. Hopefully that would keep them at bay. If you go in with both barrels blazing, you will more than likely lose them as a customer.

FWIW - I couldn't get that one gallery to display anything. I clicked on a couple of your other galleries there and they worked fine. So good work there.

[brivett]

Assuming they don't host it at home, I'd contact their ISP stating that they (i.e. the ISP) are assisting with distributing copyrighted material illegally. I think their site will get pulled pretty fast when legal proceedings are metioned.

You can spend more time chasing this stuff than it's worth....

[PhotosGuy]

I've tried non-standard crops, VERY low resolution (50-60KB), & weird post processing (dark borders) to makes it hard to make a good, free 4X6" print of them.
And they still come up & tell me about the "great 8X10" prints" they make of them! :D
It won't help much, but I'd go down from the 500 by 700 size to 600X400, or smaller. ;)

[delhi]

Why don't you just put a watermark on it? I don't like lowering my gallery's pix resolution. it diminishes the viewing pleasure of my audiences/clients. People can download your pix when you post them on forums like this anyways. So watermark it.

[PhotosGuy]

Why don't you just put a watermark on it? I don't like watermarking my shots. it diminishes the viewing pleasure of my audiences. People can download your pix when you post them on forums like this anyways & PS out the smaller watermarks. ;)

[taygull]

The watermark is the answer...it is a give and take world.

[Tee Why]

Just accept the fact that anything placed on the internet can be yanked.
If you make them smaller, watermark, and what not, it makes it harder and easier to id stolen photos, but there is no real way to prevent it in my view.

[guaranine]

to keep people from scanning your images and claiming them as their own you could try putting a foil mark on your shot, much like the ones on olin mills shots. it costs money, but seems like its necessary. i use 350 pixels by whatever the short side ends up being for my website and i save it as a lower quality .jpg on photoshop. saves me space as well as keeps people from downloading images.
beth

[ghosh]

Can any one tell me some thing about water mark? "How to get it, How to use it.. and so on ...!

[Lenzflair]

Water mark you web shots and put a © on the rear of any prints with your name/business name, address, contact ph and email, plus a notice that images may not be copied by any means. Any infridgement of the © notice will be met with a minimum $600 fee. If you find anyone breaching this send them an appropriate invoice. If they don't pay it take them to small claims court. I wont stop it all but it will slow many down.

[PhotosGuy]

Post Processing Tutorials List (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34606)

[Pinto]

to keep people from scanning your images and claiming them as their own you could try putting a foil mark on your shot, much like the ones on olin mills shots. it costs money, but seems like its necessary. i use 350 pixels by whatever the short side ends up being for my website and i save it as a lower quality .jpg on photoshop. saves me space as well as keeps people from downloading images.
beth
How does putting a foil mark on the photo deter people from scanning and Photoshoping it out like any other ownership notice ???

[waussie]

I was once a witness to an online competition, one guy trying to secure his graphics and another one trying to take them. Most protection is easily defeated by those who are determined. Luckily most aren't and have little knowledge.
How about an entry page that explains a bit about copyright and shows their IP address and the time, with a note that both are recorded if they enter the site?

[chtgrubbs]

My approach would be to send them a letter reminding them that you have forbidden unauthorized usage of your photographs and request that they remove the photographs from their gallery. If they haven't done so in a reasonable amount of time I would send them an invoice for a reasonable usage rate, reminding them that you hold copyright, that you expect payment withing 14 days. If the photo stays up and you don't get paid, you can see a lawyer about copyright infringement.

[mjordan]

You don't say what country you are in, but if you are in the US and are selling and displaying images and do not register your images with the US Copyright Office, then there isn't a whole lot you can do... unless you have a lot of money for lawyer fees. You can send invoices and pay a lawyer to write up a letter or anything like that and if they just ignore you, your only recourse is to sue... which for copyright infringement, which is a Federal Crime, can start off at a few thousands and go up to $50K if it goes to court.

If you have your images registered you get more power along with the copyright laws that can help you get paid for your work, or at least give them a good enough scare that they probably won't take images again. When you register your images and do decide to take someone to court for infringement and you win... then the infringers get to pay for all court cost and legal fees for both of you. Just pointing this out to anyone that is using your images without your permission is a great incentive for them to pay you the usuage fee plus what ever else you tack on. The last couple of times I've used it, I've charged 3 times the going commercial rate and gotten it.

Some theifs are just not worth going after with all guns... the mother that just likes the image and wants to use it on her computer background, the kids that use it on their web site, the occasional grabbing of an image to print off and tack up on the wall. But when you run into someone that is taking advantage of your image for commercial use or to pretend it is their image or just because they deserve to get hammered... now that's when you will find it's very rewarding to have your images registered. Very rewarding. :D

It only takes about 15 minutes to fill out the form and costs $30 for a CD full of images. And the day the Copyright Office gets the CD is the day your registration starts.

You can get more information at the Copyright web site: http://www.copyright.gov/ and there have been a number of threads on here with information. Or just ask questions. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been registering my images for awhile (including the test shots and snapshots) and it has been wll worth it.

Mike

[staereo]

I thought it was 45 now or something... O.o

[Pinto]

$45.00 as of July 1, 2006.

[guaranine]

How does putting a foil mark on the photo deter people from scanning and Photoshoping it out like any other ownership notice ???

its much easier to spot a print that has been scanned because the foil mark is very obvious. labs won't copy a foil stamped image unless you can prove its yours. and even then they usually want the digital file or negative. a few years ago a photographer that i know had many upset people calling him after he started foil stamping his event images and people couldn't take them to target/walmart anymore to get them copied. yes, they could still scan it at home if they wanted to, but then their options are limited. print out on a home printer, try to fix the stamp in ps and see if a lab will print or don't print at all.
beth

[mjordan]

I sent my last CD in last April, so the prices must have gone up since then. It's still worth it though. The last image I had used without my permission got me $975.00 from the person that used it. I've done a lot better spending money on registrations than I have playing the lottery. :D

Mike