Protecting images online?

[daystar]

I'd like to be able to present my pics online (I sell them on quality cards) but I'm concerned about how to protect them. I've noticed in Flickr and Photobucket you can right-click to save images and frankly, I don't want that to happen. I tried a freewebs site awhile back (you can disable right-click) but I was limited on how many images I could upload. I'm not in a position to dump a few hundred dollars on a site and a side income baby business. And there may be no other option but to do just that but I was hoping some of you here might be able to offer some suggestions/ideas.

Thanks!

[waynedsargent]

Daystar, there is no "real" way to fully protect images once they get on the internet. Some of the best options are reducing the size, and watermarking. This coupled with right click protection will keep most of the people away, but ultimately if it is on the net people can get it.

[Trick Fotoez]

id have to say just make proofs with a giant watermark across the center so they're protected...even if you disable people from downloading them on flickr, you can always just take a screen shot and crop out the picture if you really wanted to

[cecilc]

Originally Posted by daystar

... but I'm concerned about how to protect them.

Originally Posted by waynedsargent

Daystar, there is no "real" way to fully protect images once they get on the internet.

Yea, Wayne's right - there isn't a "real" nor a foolproof way to "protect" an image of yours once it's on the internet .... basically, if you can see the image on your screen, then it's available to you - period.

Some things that would "appear" to work don't - specifically, disabling right-click. So forget about that ... it's a waste of time.

A couple of things that I do (and has been suggested) are:
1) Downsize your images (don't post full-size; high-res images) to a "moderate" size - for example, 500x333 at 72 ppi. That size is large enough to "see". Surprisingly, though, that size will produce a print that is not "horrible" - although it's not "good" some people won't care and will be happy with a print that is "mediocre" at best ....
2) DO place a watermark or some identifying logo or text across your images. That way, even if they're "taken" there is your ID right there on the image. Even if it's printed, it will still identify you ..... And don't be shy about the watermark, either. Put it right there in the middle of the image and make sure you can see it.

I still have images that are taken off of my website ... but I care a lot less about it than I used to because the images I post are at that 500x333 size with my name right across the middle of the shot. If they take my shot, then they take me, too .....

[tupper]

Flash Galleries can work.. No right clicking

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by tupper

Flash Galleries can work.. No right clicking

But a screen capture works just fine on Flash too....

Dave

[tupper]

Originally Posted by tracknut

But a screen capture works just fine on Flash too....

Dave

True, but then at least quality will be so bad you can blow it up to big without ruining the image.

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by tupper

True, but then at least quality will be so bad you can blow it up to big without ruining the image.

I'm not sure I'm following you - why would the quality be any worse than the right-click flavor?

Dave

[tupper]

Originally Posted by tracknut

I'm not sure I'm following you - why would the quality be any worse than the right-click flavor?

Dave

From screen capture vs right click I've found that screen capture isn't up to the same quality as right click.

[daystar]

Thanks everyone for the input. I guess you just do your best to protect them and go on, right? I think I'll look into some watermarking software and in the meantime I'll just text my name on them. Oh, and start reducing size.

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by tupper

From screen capture vs right click I've found that screen capture isn't up to the same quality as right click.

Interesting... I guess I should steal more pictures - I would have known this

Dave

[tupper]

Originally Posted by tracknut

Interesting... I guess I should steal more pictures - I would have known this

Haha, don't worry I didn't find out by stealing, just by testing it.

[Trick Fotoez]

id like to see you steal this lol...dang do i have to re-watermark all my pics now?

[Jamesino]

Originally Posted by tupper

From screen capture vs right click I've found that screen capture isn't up to the same quality as right click.

That's nonsense.

Supposing that the image is small enough to fit in on screen, the image captured from a "print screen" method and a right-click copy and paste is the same.

You can test this by copy and pasting both images captured and setting one as a difference layer in Photoshop.

[LordV]

The right click protection is a nonsense. If you know where to look a copy of the image is already on your PC hard drive whether it's right click protected or not.

The only way to protect an image is as already stated not to allow high res versions to be displayed at all. I think all photographic selling galleries I've seen only display a low res copy of the high res versiuon that is available.

Even copyright messages across a pic can be removed by someone with a bit of patience and PS skill. This has to be balanced by allowing potential customers to get an idea of what the picture looks like- many times I've seen a logo that totally disfigures the pic making it impossible to judge the picture.

Brian V.