What to do to prevent other to use Your photos?

[tommykjensen]

What do You guys do to prevent other people to use Your photos without permission?

Yesterday when I routinely checked my serverlogs and went through the referrals I noticed a strange referrer that indicated I had posted either an image or a link to my site in a forum I did not know. So I checked that link (http://www.az240sx.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=10351) and do You think I was surprised when I first saw the photo?
Well I got down from the ceiling :shock: when I scrolled down and saw the poster had properly credited me and provided a link to my site however he did not ask permission.

I realise that I probably can't prevent something like this but how can I track down my photos.

No I don't think all my photos are that great that everybody wants to steal them :wink: But this specific one is one of my best so..... If he had asked to use it I would most likely have said yes anyway so.

[Scottes]

There's an old old thread around here about changes to Apache. Basically it's a script that checks the referrer, and if it's not acceptable (like here via name or IP) then instead it shows a "Don't steal my pictures!" image instead.

But that really only helps bandwidth stealing and linking.

Very recently I saw a "watermark" with photog's name done *very* lightly so it didn't obscur the image. It's faint, but definitely will deter theft I'd say. Here's the link: http://www.moosegallery.com/gallery/grizzlybears1532.html

I like that very faint watermark.

[Scottes]

BTW, good thing you caught that. And he did credit you fully, which is very nice. Given his comments on your shot I wouldn't even yell at him.

:)

[jimtfoto]

Credit or not, the guy shouldn't have used your pic without permission .... there are people on these forums much wiser in the ways of the web than I, but I'm sure there must be some way of denying unauthorized download capability on your posted pix. Maybe a link to an order page, or a password entry ... I visit several UK newspaper sites and while their pix are available for viewing at a larger size, you can't download ....
cheers,
jim

[tommykjensen]

BTW, good thing you caught that. And he did credit you fully, which is very nice. Given his comments on your shot I wouldn't even yell at him.

:)

Yeah I won't yell at him, it is a nice comment :D And I am glad he credited me I just wish he had asked first :(

Only thing I might do is ask him to host the photo on his own server so it use his bandwitdh and not mine. But then again, if I leave it as it is I can keep track of view counts etc...

As for the watermark. The sample is very faint and it did take me a second or 2 before I actually noticed it. But it is a shame to do that I think.

As for Apache, I am not using that webserver yet so I can't use that method currently.

[Scottes]

Pictures are *always* downloadable, otherwise you can't see them in your browser. Some people try tricks like disabling right-clicks but that doesn't stop the people who know that the image is stored in their browser's cache directory...

[tommykjensen]

Pictures are *always* downloadable, otherwise you can't see them in your browser. Some people try tricks like disabling right-clicks but that doesn't stop the people who know that the image is stored in their browser's cache directory...
Yeah I don't even want to waste my time trying to implement a system like that.

[Scottes]

Yep, simply create an image with your name or logo repeated multiple time (ala Moose Peterson above) and create an action to load it into your image, change opacity to something very low, and flatten. It would take about 2 seconds to add your watermark to each image...

[tommykjensen]

Just to try it out, should the new image be a png or gif type with transparent background?

The big problem doing something like this is to be creative and comeup with something nice, cool or unique. (My skills in that department s**** 8) )

[Scottes]

GIF with transparency. You'll get warning about color space and different bit depth but the action will take care of that.

I'd make sure that the GIF had *exactly* 2 colors - black or grey and the transparent color.


Don't do anything fancy, IMHO. It's just protection, not part of the art.

[tommykjensen]

This is embarassing :oops: I can't figure out how to set the white background as the transparent color?

[Scottes]

ROFL - It took me some time, too! In fact I have to go remember it...

Image... Mode... 8-bits
Image... Mode... Indexed ("Transparency" checked!)
Image... Mode... Color Table
Bottom right pixel should be Transparent. Click on it. Color picker will appear. Hit escape. Click on eye dropper. Click on color to become Transparent. Color should disappear.


Seems like it should be more intuitive...

[tommykjensen]

Got it, thanks.

[Jesper]

I have more than 700 photos on http://jesper.fotopic.net - Never noticed that anyone had stolen a photo, but who knows...

What I do to prevent it:

- Enabled the "no right-click" option in my gallery. I know it's not going to stop someone who really wants my photo, but at least it makes it less easy for just any user to copy my photos.

- Direct linking doesn't work with fotopic.net, or just sort-of - fotopic.net will add a banner at the bottom of the photo if you try.

- I resize all my photos to max. 720 pixels on the long side, which makes it impossible to make good quality prints (although it won't stop people from stealing photos for use on screen).

Nothing is really completely thief proof (except the last thing, which makes it impossible to make a high res print).... I don't like to put logos or copyright messages on my photos.

[tommykjensen]

How do You think this looks like

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/HarrisHawkWM.jpg

[Sgouz]

Looks good!

[Scottes]

Sorry, but that's meaningless. It would take me seconds to clone that out.

It does look good, but make it lighter and repeat it about 20 times. Part of the idea is that it's almost non-existent, but occurs far too many times to make cloning easy.

I do like the look of it though.

[tommykjensen]

Did You see both watermarks?

[Scottes]

Ha! No I didn't see the second on his neck. That may be a little too light? Actually though, I think that's about right if it's repeated.

My worry is that with just one or two it's easy to clone. But with 20 barely-visible ones then stealing the image becomes real work.

[tommykjensen]

I know and this was just to see how it would look like and to be honest I don't like destroying the photo like this. I guess I'll just make sure not to make larger sizes than 800 pixels on the long side available on my website.

That just leaves the question how to track down where images are posted, copied to or linked from. I tried a google search on the filename but that did not find the image not even on my own server.

[Scottes]

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think the second one is subtle enough not to detract.

It's tough finding if someone stole your picture. It's nice to have your own server - I check my Apache logs for referrer data occasionally. But that only checks if it's stolen and still linking to your site.

Otherwise you have to stumble upon it like you did. At least the watermarks go with the photo no matter how they got it.

[IndyJeff]

I would send the guy an email thanking him for at least giving you a photo credit, oh and BTW, here is an invoice for the use of the photo. Please remit the full amount by check to the address listed below.

Then at the bottom a nice little paragraph about copyright infringement and the penalties for such.



p.s I wouldn't make the bill to much, maybe $30 - $40. Who knows he might even pay it.

[Biko]

I have found a couple of sites using my pictures and one that lifted the whole page of something like 15 pics and uploaded to their own site as their work - no credit to me :x They stupidly forgot to change the links so it came up on the traffic log.

I contacted them informing them of copyright violation and after a bit of a protest they removed the page. :)

We have also noticed that google image searches have started, (site is 6 months old) so have coded a no follow .jpeg on certain pages that we feel are ripe for taking pics. AFAIA concerned they are not interested about the site other than taking pictures so are taking our bandwidth.

Tommy you can always change the picture on your server........... :twisted:

[IndyJeff]

LOL

Tommy you can always change the picture on your server...........


One of a very large person in what could only be described as "fat porn" would be a good deterrent. Change the name of the image on your HD to the same as that of the image they are using. Remove used image from your website, insert new image with the same name as the one they stole. Imagine their surprise when they start getting their site shutdown because of complaints about fat porn. LMAO

Ahhhhhh ain't life just dandy?

[tommykjensen]

LOL

Tommy you can always change the picture on your server...........


One of a very large person in what could only be described as "fat porn" would be a good deterrent. Change the name of the image on your HD to the same as that of the image they are using. Remove used image from your website, insert new image with the same name as the one they stole. Imagine their surprise when they start getting their site shutdown because of complaints about fat porn. LMAO

Ahhhhhh ain't life just dandy?

Haha, except that I would probably quickly get a little note from Phil Askey of DPreview and Pekka about it! Edit on DPR is not possible soooo.

[tommykjensen]

I hate this. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Now I found another site that blatently abuse the same photo without my permission! :evil: :evil: :evil:


http://team-xf.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=506

Unfortunately that topic is special access only so I can't see in what context my photo is used so if anyone know this forum or forum owner let me know.

If the owner or the responsible person should read this then contact me via pm!

[tommykjensen]

Unbelievable, a moderator of the site does not think using a photo without permission is abuse !

That doesn't look like 'abuse' to me. The person that posted it doesn't take credit for it or anything, just uses it as an example of something he thought was kool from what I can tell.

If you didn't want people to use your photo then don't post it on the internet. He used it as an example of something he thought was cool, plain and simple. That's not abuse, that's flattery.

If you want to come here and ask us something, try it without the attitude and finger pointing.

Well now I have changed my photo to this

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/HarrisHawk.jpg


If You want to assist me goto the site and post Your comments in this thread: http://team-xf.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=546

[tommykjensen]

I now got a satishfactory answer from the forum in question so no need to start anything.

[tommykjensen]

I now have a small php script in place that I will use to post photos with. This will check if the site it is posted on is on my list of sites where I post photos myself. I am moving the photos to a location on my server that is non-accesible except via this script.

So in future when someone tries to link to my photos without permission they will get either this photo

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/filedoesnotexist.jpg

or this

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/illegal.jpg

or a plain and simple 404 error!

[Scottes]

Yep, tommy, those work. That's my preferred approach, should I ever find a reason to do so.

I'd make the second one 2 lines so it will fit within small screens. Also, an animated blinking GIF is generally so annoying that people will immediately click off the page. :wink:


PS: Don't forget to check for good IPs as well as hostnames, just in case.

[PacAce]

Yep, tommy, those work. That's my preferred approach, should I ever find a reason to do so.

I'd make the second one 2 lines so it will fit within small screens. Also, an animated blinking GIF is generally so annoying that people will immediately click off the page. :wink:


PS: Don't forget to check for good IPs as well as hostnames, just in case.

You mean like a dancing fruit of sort? :wink:

[tommykjensen]

Yep, tommy, those work. That's my preferred approach, should I ever find a reason to do so.

It just p* me off that I have to do this and destroy the images with watermarks :evil: But someone people just won't respect other people's work. I don't pretend that all my photos are super quality but the few that are I want to protect but also show off.

The whole problem with this method is that I can't edit my posts on dpreview so eventually all my previous posts there will be filled with red x's and I can only post a link there in the future.

There is one or a couple advantages too. This way I now have a little better way to see stats on these images. Every hit is registered in a db so I can run reports. Until now I look in the webserver logs.

[tommykjensen]

I am using MS IIS as my webserver and have no immediate plans to switch to Apache.

If someone references the file abc.jpg and it does not exist how do I execute a php script instead of giving the user the normal 404 page?

[PacAce]

I am using MS IIS as my webserver and have no immediate plans to switch to Apache.

If someone references the file abc.jpg and it does not exist how do I execute a php script instead of giving the user the normal 404 page?

Tommy, can't you just go into the web site properties (via Computer Management, Internet Information Services) and then specify the page or script you want displayed or executed via the "Custom Errors" tab?

[tommykjensen]

Probably, I will see if I can execute a php script from there. Because I want to preserve the normal 404 if the someone tries a .htm or .php file that does not exist.

[Scottes]

I highly doubt that you can get the web server to do an if statement for 404s. You might be able to get the server to run your PHP script for ALL 404s, then you'll have to get the script to determine if it's time for Tommy's Special Image 404, or just a regular 404.

[Ikinaa]

It's always bad if someone steals your things...

But see the other side : If your photos were bad, no one would steal them... Cheer up, see it as a compliment :P

[tommykjensen]

I highly doubt that you can get the web server to do an if statement for 404s. You might be able to get the server to run your PHP script for ALL 404s, then you'll have to get the script to determine if it's time for Tommy's Special Image 404, or just a regular 404.

Yes that is my plan once I get home and can start some testing.


But see the other side : If your photos were bad, no one would steal them... Cheer up, see it as a compliment

True but still, all it requires is a short email, saying 'Hey I really like this photo, can I link to it?' then there would not be an issue at least not as long as its for private use. Luckily none of the 2 incidents have character of being comercial.

[Ikinaa]

But see the other side : If your photos were bad, no one would steal them... Cheer up, see it as a compliment

True but still, all it requires is a short email, saying 'Hey I really like this photo, can I link to it?' then there would not be an issue at least not as long as its for private use. Luckily none of the 2 incidents have character of being comercial.

Absolutely... I share the same opinion...

[tommykjensen]

I highly doubt that you can get the web server to do an if statement for 404s. You might be able to get the server to run your PHP script for ALL 404s, then you'll have to get the script to determine if it's time for Tommy's Special Image 404, or just a regular 404.

I got it to work.

This links to a non existing JPG (http://www.klein-jensen.dk/donotexist.jpg)

This links to a non existing htm (http://www.klein-jensen.dk/donotexist.htm)

Now I just need to edit all my posts here to make sure the photos are displayed.

I will still play around with what to display on illegal linking :twisted:

[Scottes]

Nope. The nonexisting.jpg produces the contents of the JPEG shown as text.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gobbledygook.gif

I think you need to send the correct MIME type, too.

[Scottes]

I will still play around with what to display on illegal linking :twisted:

Be nice, but annoying as hell. It will only display to innocent people - the poster will probably never see it again.

I like blinking crap - bright, gaudy colors enough to annoy a punk rocker. And play music in the background, too. :-) Anything to get the person to switch pages.


Once Timmyquest linked a pic from another site, and the owner of that image did what you are doing. But that guy changed the image to be an extremly disgusting one that I won't even describe. It was pretty bad.

[tommykjensen]

Nope. The nonexisting.jpg produces the contents of the JPEG shown as text.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gobbledygook.gif

I think you need to send the correct MIME type, too.

This is weird, it has been working all along :?:

[Scottes]

Your browser is smarter than mine.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/gobbledygook2.gif

You are sending MIME type as text/html, should be application/jpg for a JPG.

[tommykjensen]

Apparently it is my redirect that mess up the mime type. Now I definately am sending the mime type but I have disabled the script to redirect for now until I figure out what is what :(

Do You see an image here

http://www.klein-jensen.dk/photo3.php?n=bafodomundo_portrait.jpg

[Scottes]

Yep, I see that image.

Odd though - it looks like a black & white version of your hawk picture.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding. It looks fine. :)

[tommykjensen]

This is really weird.

If I send header("Content-type: application/jpg"); the photo displays fine inside the IMG tag but clicking on the photo result in a save as box.

If I leave out the header the image still display fine (at least on my pc) and when clicking on the photo it opens fine in a new window?

Can anybody tell me why that is? btw I edited above post with the photo so it now use a script that do not send the header, please let me know if You see a photo and what happens when you click on it.

[Jon]

Using Mozilla 1.7 on XP SP2, I see the image, but when I click on it I get the text stream in a new window. In IE6 (same machine), I see the image, and clicking on it opens the same image in a new window.