dds701 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I have a website developed for the purpose of showing my photos and possibly selling a few. I currently have a copyright notification there: "All images posted herein are Copyright protected by US copyright registration. Any use by any means without the prior written and expressed consent from the photographer is strictly prohibited". "All Rights Reserved". I was wondering if the images are websized, 100Kb or less, most are around 70kb, can that image be manipulated to a suitable degree for someone to actually use it? My understanding was such a web sized image could be downloaded, but not enlarged, enhanced etc and still have a suitable image of useable resolution. I know it doesn't hurt to have it there but realistically why take up valuable space on several pages for copyright notices if the images are not likely to be manipulated and useable? Thanks for response. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j._dolan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>Could be used for what? For a 8x10 print that looks like anything, No. For use on the web, maybe. </p> <p>Are you watermarking your images?</p> <p>Send me a sample image if you want and I'll tell you more about how usable it is. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>You'd be surprised at what people do. I have a client whose daughter takes screen shots of proof images, crops out my watermark, and posts them on her Facebook page. I suggest protecting yourself to the level at which you're comfortable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbanks Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>I've found several of my images have been taken from the web and edited to use in on-line flyers that promote events at clubs and bars (by adding text, combined with other images etc), and in one case changing the colours of the clothes that the model was wearing...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>The upside of using small files is that they look crappy when printed very large and should discourage people from trying to do that. The downside is that some people will do it anyway and the reaction of people who see the results will be that Doug is a pretty bad photographer, not that someone stole Doug's intellectual property and made a poor quality print from it. I'm not a web expert, but there is technology that prevents image files from being downloaded in the first place. I know that's an option on SmugMug and presumably elsewhere. I would look into that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enlightened-images Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>If it's big enough to be seen, it's big enough to be used in a web ad. That's exactly what happened to one of my images. Watermark is a good idea. In my case, that wasn't enough, as they still used it anyway. They wound up paying four figures for their little mistake.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parv Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>Craig S, somebody else made the similar claim either for Zenfolio or Smugmug in past around here. At that time, I had download an image from there & and replied with the image's URL located elsewhere just to point out the false sense of security. That person did not respond to that. (Later I had deleted the image from the server where I had uploaded that image.) <p> If something has changed since then (<a href="http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00YU61">Mar 2011</a>), I would love to give another try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles_Webster Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I'm not a web expert, but there is technology that prevents image files from being downloaded in the first place</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Wrong!</strong> If you see it on your browser screen, it has been downloaded to your computer, already. There are methods to prevent right-click "download image" copying, but a determined thief can always steal your photos. The <strong>ONLY</strong> way to prevent someone from stealing your images is to not post them at all.<br> <Chas></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruben leal Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <p>Some people don't realize they can't take whatever they find in the net (people from some countries are more prono to this than people from other countries), so a copyright note, at least in the front page, is always a good thing to have, and it shouldn't take more than a screen line.<br> Besides that, people don't always understand they may hurt your business by showing prints of your images when taken from the web (a relative for whom I photographed her wedding printed some of her pictures from my website, even while I was supposed to deliver a disk with full res images a couple of weeks later - she just couldn't wait that long to show the prints to her friends... and recommend my work).<br> I use onOne Software's Genuine Fractals (now Perfect Resize) to enlarge my 18 megapixels files to wall size. How can't someone else use the same technology to print a 8x10" from a screen shot?<br> The usual technology used to prevent images to be stolen from websites is Flash, but as long as you can see it you can copy it (just need to take a screen shot instead of copying the original file). Maybe something new is being used since the iPad is in the market, as Apple doesn't supports flash (don't know if there is something in HTML5 that prevents images from being stolen, as I stopped caring about security measures years ago: if people is going to steal it then it's going to steal it!).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dds701 Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Interesting comments, and thanks for taking time to respond. I love these forums and it shows that there is a multitude of knowledge available and it is appreciated that folks like you reply and offer help. I don't have a watermark on my images, tried to develop one through the PSE06 program, actually made and saved an embossed type watermark but couldn't get the darn thing imposed on the images. My images are registered with US copyright office, I paid to have that done. BTW Charles, Rob and Gary, great images at the bottom here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmarchant Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I know it doesn't hurt to have it there but realistically why take up valuable space on several pages for copyright notices if the images are not likely to be manipulated and useable?</p> </blockquote> <p>You don't need a notice on every page, just on the home page. You also don't need such a verbose copyright message. "All images are copyright 2011 [your name]" is all you need. Anyone willing to ignore that is willing to ignore the same message with twice as many words.</p> <p>You should also ensure your camera is set to include a copyright message in the image exif data. Makes it easier to prove images are yours and anyone removing such info is committing a federal offence and subject to a large fine for every instance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The upside of using small files is that they look crappy when printed very large </p> </blockquote> <p><br />"Crappy" is relative to the usage. Some of my web photos have been used in large posters (usually with permission) because they were for punk bands, and the large version fit the usage. That's something people have to get straight, it's about whether it looks like what people want, not fitting someone's personal technical definition of what is "crappy." </p> <blockquote> <p>there is technology that prevents image files from being downloaded</p> </blockquote> <p>I know others have pointed out, but I want to reinforce that this is even more wrong than the "crappy" comment. </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack_zoll Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>You should also ensure your camera is set to include a copyright message in the image exif data. Makes it easier to prove images are yours and anyone removing such info is committing a federal offence and subject to a large fine for every instance.</p> </blockquote> <p>The exif data can be stripped or altered pretty easily; on Windows machines, you just need to right-click, go to 'properties' and punch in new data. It doesn't prevent the crime, but it does prevent them from getting caught.</p> <p>There are several software programs that can tell if an image has been modified in any way after it left the camera. The only way I can think of to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the image in question is yours is to use a camera that lets you insert a copyright tag, save the RAW image, and then present the RAW file, with the verification software, at an evidentiary hearing. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only way. Or, of course, to have submitted the image to the Feds for copyright before someone else tried to.</p> <p>I don't know of any way to prevent the theft in the first place though. You can watermark the hell out of your images so that they can't be used, but this makes them awful to view. I only suggest big watermarks for images that are meant to be ordered, and not for use in a portfolio, wedding album, or the like.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulie_smith1 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 <p>Have had to file a number of DMCA takedown notices and it seems to be getting worse. The DMCA notice does bring results and in some instances the privider has shut down the website until the party using the image has taken it down. A couple have told the miscreants that a second notice will result in total shutdown and refusal of any more service.<br> If I go on the site and see more than just my image that appear to belong to others I do the notice with the ISP and don't notify the website owners at all. If it appears to to be a one time thing I'll start with the owner or the one who monitors the site. But, once I find you do it to others I'll go the mean guy route every time.<br> It is worth the hassle.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phototransformations Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 <p>I find that people blithely ignore copyright notices, "All Rights Reserved," etc. Facebook is the worst for this, but thanks to Google Image's new search-by-image option I've found hundreds of uses all over the world. I have gotten some images taken down either by asking the website owner to do so or by contacting their ISP, and a couple of times people have paid me my usual fee for the images after using them without permission, but most of the time the people who use my images also ignore efforts to stop them and it hasn't been worth the hassle. Lately, I've been getting Facebook to take down the Facebook-posted images, going after people who are making commercial use of my images, and ignoring the rest. It takes too much time, and it's like trying to kill the hydra -- each time you cut off one head, two more emerge.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbanks Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 <p>I've noticed that even people I have worked with who are in the business of publishing and who vehemently defend their (un-trademarked/un-registered) business name think it is OK to copy images from any online source and publish them online <strong><em>so long as they credit the photographer. </em></strong>We need to educate them.</p> <p>Thanks for your kind words Doug ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 <p>I made a separate page with my copyright notice and have many of my photo pages link to it.</p> <p><a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/copyright_notice.shtml">http://www.saugus.net/Photos/copyright_notice.shtml</a><br /> I also put my contact / copyright info on my image borders. This promotes the sale of rights and discourages (some) infringement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now