I have recently found some of my images on a site that I think maybe Brazilian.

Can anyone here help me to translate the site and the wording around my images - I have no idea whether they are using my images in the context that I would like them viewed. Also I can't find a link to my site anywhere!
I don't know what type of site this is and they certainly did not ask my permission to use these images

The site address is

http://www.dual.weblogger.terra.com.br/

There are 3 of my images about half way down the page begining with my carrots images - masks image and finally a yellow daisy image. These are under the following title
quarta-feira, 27 de novembro de 2002

Please help me
Clare

Have Just found another one :angry:

http://detodosnos.weblogger.terra.com.br/


Under the same date heading as above!!

Please help me I am getting really upset about this now

clare, i have had good success using this site, including for translations, albeit from yiddish, not spanish; perhaps they could help; i have in most cases gotten answers in 24 hours or less.

http://allexperts.com/central/cultures.shtml

Clare both the carrots and mask images are linked to your site. Right click them and then click properties.

Thanks kathleen and gland

I have sent a message to the experts - thanks for the link Kathleen.

Gland - Yes it apears that the images are linked to my web server. If I find that the sites are not using them in the context I would like them viewed I now have an easy way of breaking there link. Thank you for pointing this out.

Has anyone else had simlar problems with there images being used by different web sites? How did you sort it out?

Google has some translation abilities...

The following: quarta-feira, 27 de novembro de 2002
is just a day/date
Wednesday, 27 of November of 2002

Under the Carrot picture: Quando a fama custa caro
is:
When the fame costs expensive (according to the translation on Google).


Not sure about the rest...

Good luck in figuring out why they have YOUR pics...

Jeffrey

Thanks jrolinc

I got the same from Google.

Whats that got to do with carrots?

Then it makes little sense from there on in.

And it would seem that my cabbage on the lower link is advertising Hannibal Lector!!

I am still searching for the reasons why my images are being used.

Clare

Clare they shouldn't be using your images at all without your consent. Normally people just copy the image and put it on their own server.

Legally I don't know what, if any, recourse you have. Most people I know E-mailed the site owner and complained.

Clare this is bad news-good news.

Bad news: Someone is stealing your images.

Good news: You have something worth stealing. :D

Ha I am going to play them at there own game!

I am going to redo each of the images so that it read

(c)Clare Sadler
www.imagepure.com

in base at the base of all the images

That should sort the little suckers!

Clare

I could be wrong here, but isn't the national language of Brazil, Portugese? Don't know how much difference it would make in the translation though.

I did find that a member of RP had used an image that I submitted for a challenge, on his website. It is an image of my daughter, that she gave permission to use as a challenge, but not for anything else. While I don't think it was right to use the image without asking, I didn't pursue the matter. My daughter doesn't know about it. That's one reason why I no longer submit images for challenges, if there could be a problem. That kind of puts me in a hard position.

Ed

Clare, I have not had anyone stealing images. (I don't have any up yet. :rolleyes: ) However, I found that the Professional Photographers of Colorado website (http://www.ppcolorado.com) has all of it's images "locked" so that you can't right-click and copy/save them at all. I'm thinking of doing something like that on my site - which I hope to have up by the first of the year. I don't know if this would stop someone from linking back to your page however. (Probably not. :( )

As far as translation, there are some free translators on the web which will take a URL and translate it. I just did this recently - I'll try to find the one I used again. Oh - and since this webpage is from Brazil, it's most likely in Portuguese (not Spanish.)

Jeanie

There isn't much you can do considering where they are being used and if they are giving any sort of credit to you, the link, this seems to be the downsize of posting a pic somewhere on the web, anybody can take it and use it, and you have no control over how they do that.
Unless you have a lot of money you are stuck, because it cost a fortune to pursue copyright enfringement, and after you have paid to stop them, most likely they will just agree to stop using and you have put alot of money out and the cost to them 0.
I had a photo used by somebody else in a art contest and even after I confronted the person and notified the art source nothing was done, the person even got an award and then to make matters worse, when I used my photo, somebody accussed me of stealing it from that person. Go figure that.

Seeing as how they are linking to your site, why not take just one of the images and type" This image stolen from imagepure.com" in large bold letters.

See how long it takes for them to discover it. :)

Wow - I've been trying to translate and going back and forth to the pages - and now all of the images have a big "(c) Clare..." on them! :D You move fast Clare!

As far as translation, I found http://www.itools.com/ which will take a webpage for translation. It's pretty rough, but from what I can understand, it doesn't appear that the text has anything to do with the images. They both appear to be web blogs which just intersperse poems/musings with random images (that presumably the blogger finds appealing.) All of the images on those two sites are linked to other sites on the web - none appear to be hosted at the site where the text is.

Do you mind my asking how you found your pictures on these sites? Just wondering if there's some sort of searching I should be doing once I get my site up. Is there a way to find all of the links TO your site as well as what they are linking to?

Jeanie

I'm going to have fun with these image ........ (expletive)

I have reloaded these images onto my site with the copyright logo attached. Go see :)

I am now going to take Gary's idea and change another on on each of the pages to have a stolen message!!

If they are atill using them tommorrow I will change the names of my images so they no longer are able to link!

jeaniesa - I am going to take a look at the link that you provided and incorporate this as well - Thank you

platscha@cs.com - I feel for you - having someone win a prize for your image and being told you are the imposter is out of order. Do you still have the original negative - if so I would approach the company and show them that they have made a mistake. (another digital issue that will be hard to prove!) Good Luck!

Thank you all for your feed back - I was really depressed when I saw these images come up - but thanks to everyone I am getting my revenge

jeaniesa

My web server comes with a link to Matrix stats
http://matrixstats.com/
In this there is a section called spongers! I check it every now and then to just check everything is running well. They also send my a stat's chart each week to tell me how many people have accessed my site and the search engines that refer and loads of other useful data on pages being viewed etc.

In my weekly report I noticed that there were over 1100 accesses to a webcrawler that I did not recognise as a link I had put in place! So I went onto the site to see who they are - you know the rest.

Steeling images that we spend our time creating just isn't on. It breaks my heart when someone who has no right to use an image is flaunting it for everyone to see. And not even Paying Me for it!!! :angry:

I have learnt a valuable lesson today - and I will not let people like this get away with it - nor should you! Together lets eat them for breakfast and growl at them for lunch!

Clare

Clare - the PPC website appears to be down at the moment. I imagine it will be back up soon. I don't know HOW they prevent right-clicks - only that they do. (You can't view source either.) I do have some contacts in that organization however, so I'll try to find out how it's done. (Also, I think I posted at the same time as you previously - don't know if you saw my question just above your last post.)

Platscha - I can't even imagine being accused of stealing someone's picture - who actually stole mine and won a prize for it! Yikes!! I firmly believe that person's actions will come back to haunt him/her however!

Jeanie

Clare, I just took another look at your site and I noticed that you've added a "watermark" to all of your images. Did you just do that or was the watermark always there? Would you mind sharing how you did that?

Thanks, Jeanie

Originally posted by jeaniesa
Also, I think I posted at the same time as you previously - don't know if you saw my question just above your last post
Jeanie [/B]

Yes we posted together but hopefully my second post will help

Clare

jeaniesa -we did it again!!!!!


The water mark was created by placing a text layer over the final image with the (c)Clare Sadler repeted several times ++++. Then I changed the layer setting until it showed the writting without obsuring any of the image and reduced the opacity till it was legable. Normally either opacity or difference but it depends on the image.

Clare

Thanks for the info Clare! I know that my webhost provides a bunch of stats, but since I don't have my webpage up yet, I haven't actually bothered to figure out what the stats actually tell me. Now I'm inspired to go look!

I really like how you did the watermark b/c it doesn't detract from the image - but it's enough to catch your eye and make you look closer. Very elegant solution!

Jeanie

Disabling right-click will only prevent the most casual users from stealing images. You can still use "view source" from the menu to get the paths.

There is a way to prevent anyone from linking to your images if you have access to your .htaccess file (check with your webspace provider). It's a bit complex to get into here, but it prevents anyone clicking through from any domain but your own from viewing images.

Someone used one of our images here in a Howard Stern chat forum, and that one image drove our bandwidth usage way up. So I simply renamed the image.

Thanks for the info Doug

I will look into remove the right click properties - and get in touch with my host for further linking issues.

I have just emailed just about everyone who has images on the site to tell them there images maybe being used without there knowledge. Hopefully this will stop there steeling of images - and give them alot of work to try and keep there pages upto date. I am also going to go to this site on a regular basis and sent emails to all the images sites.

clare

Thanks for the additional info Doug. I know there are some sites which also prevent View Source too. Or have I imagined that?

Do you know how to prevent right-click from working? I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Is it done in HTML or with the security settings at the webserver level?

And thanks for the tip about .htaccess!

Clare, I was going to suggest contacting the owners of other images on those sites, but seems like it could be a big job to track it all the time. I applaud you for taking that on!

Jeanie

Well, I used the cached pages from a google search to look at a PPC page and it appears the the right-click is disabled with a Java script such that when a right click occurs, a dialog box pops up and says (in effect) "This is a copyrighted image. Thank you for not copying it."

Jeanie

I am going to leave my new edited images on this site for probably about a week. Then I will rename them. I am also looking into Doug's suggestion of not being able to download the images and keeping a eye on my stat's. Hopefully with the editing that I have done to my images this will deter future image scouts from using my images.

I am also going to send the web site an email telling them how discusted I am at there business, and that I have sent all other image holders an email to this effect.

Hopefully in time they will learn that they need to pay for the work they exhibit - or at least give a credit to those images they use.

Keep your eye on those who are steeling images - we work hard - we deserve credit for what we have produced.

Clare

This is not what I had planned on doing today, but interesting nonetheless. If anyone is still following this thread, I did a little research on "disable view source" and came up with a ton of information. The general consensus is that if you are using HTML, there isn't a way to prevent people from seeing your source (and hence the links to your images.) Java script can be used to disable right click, but a user can just as easily turn off Java in their browser and the script would be useless. There are deterrants you can use, but the only way to really "secure" your site is to use something other than HTML.

If anyone's interested, here are some links that I found helpful in explaining the issue:

https://lists.latech.edu/pipermail/javascript/2002-September/004115.html

http://www.geocities.com/felgall_com_au/htmlt4.htm

http://www.drpeterjones.com/hidden/hidden.php

Here's some sites that provide some code:

http://www.js-examples.com/example/?ex=580

http://users3.cgiforme.com/htmlhelponline/messages/383.html

And here's some shareware encryption tools:

http://www.softlandmark.com/HtmlEncryption.htm

This has been a fascinating lesson for me Clare. Thanks! (But still sorry to hear your images were being used illegally.)

Jeanie

We're posting at the same time again! :D

Thanks jeaniesa

I am going to look into your links tomorrow- I am bushed for today - this was meant to be a productive day - it's turned into a very frustrating day. Hopefully with all the help that has been given here I will beable to beat the bad people and move on.

Thank you all

Ready for a large beer - Clare

Searching a little more... I found a very helpful website describing .htaccess and all that it can be used for. This is the link to the main page - there is a link to "preventing hotlinking of your images" down near the bottom.

http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess.shtml

Clare, you might want to reframe today and realize that it actually was productive - just not in the area you envisioned when the day started. Frustrating yes - but you learned some important "stuff"!

Jeanie

Clare,
From what I can translate, it seems Xando is using your images to illustrate his rants and opinions. This blog or web log seems to deal with philosophies of art and other ideas. He has decided that your photos enhance what he has to say.
Perhaps you can take this as a compliment, but for now at least you have taken a step to protect your images.
If I can find out more, I will pass it on.
Debbie

A tutorial I came across on the NAPP website, (I'm a member)
www.photoshopuser.com
has a tutorial about a way to protect your images.

I am not able to "copy" the full tutorial, but if you have any knowledge (or is anyone does) of how to do this...here are the basic premises.

Create an image, same size as your web image. The Tutorial had an image that was just text, stating: THIS IMAGE UNAVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD
Make this image the roll-over image to your actual image (that you don't want downloaded).

Now, if someone either trys to right click or do save image...they will get the roll-over image instead of the actual image.

Of course, this never stops determined people...but something fairly simple.

:cool:

Image REady allows you to do rollovers with your pictures and the direcetions are pretty straight forward. As you stated Jeffrey, a determined copier can also try a standard copy page or print screen and then get the photo's desired. While the quality will suffer, they still have the image. Sadly public domain, right now, is the status quo for the web. But Clare is at least, protecting her image, a little bit.
Debbie

Thanks for that suggestion Jeffrey. I realize if someone really wants an image, they'll find a way to get it. But it seems like the more tricks we have to protect our images, the better.

I think I will still do the watermarks like Clare is doing as well. Just a single watermark is pretty easy to clone over, but all across the image like Clare has done makes cloning a pain in the butt! (Not that it couldn't be done - just a pain to do it.)

Jeanie

As for putting copyright and sig on pic, it takes me about 1.5 secs to remove that.
As f or the right click think, takes about 2 secs to go around that.
And you can always do a print screen.
There is a way you put a marker on your photo that lets you do a internet search that shows anywhere you pic is being used on the net, I don't have info but read about it.
It's not copyright enfringement unless they claim it to be theres, in other words, of they use your phot that you posted but give credit or a link then they are not claiming it is there's, you gave public access by posting it.
There is a watermark that actually embedes into the photo pixels that cannot be cloned away, maybe do a search on google, I have seen many professionals use it.
I guess the bottom line is to be flattered that your work is that important to the person, instead of raising hell for using it I would ask for financial compensation for its use.
The guy that used my photo, I emailed him and asked when he would be in another show, then I entered the same photo with the particulars proving it mine, that took care of him, a huge embarassment to him.

I believe this is what you are referring to...I've been thinking of protecting some of my photos with this, maybe if I get "better" photos on the net it may help.

Digimarc (www.digimarc.com)

You can sign up for free...and get a "registered" digimarc that allows you to digitally "sign" up to a certain number of photos.

If you want above and beyond that, it costs...

Again, for every one thing you find to protect...someone is out there to find a way around it. This at least provides you with a way to search and PROVE someone has stolen something.

Enough said....

:o:

That was exactly what I was referring to you, what an under statement, you are absolutely right, in secs no matter what you do somebody, somewhere will find an immediate way to go around, cannot let it drive you crazy for sure.

Platscha,
I agree with everything you're saying. My thought on watermarks is that if it's covering the whole photo like Clare did, it's a bigger pain to remove (and takes more than 1.5 secs). Obviously, if someone really wanted to, they could remove it. But, it would deter casual users who might not think it worth it. (Then again, given what I see some people have printed off the web, a watermark might not even phase them! :( )

jrolinc, Yes, I've heard of digimarc. In fact, it's one of the PS filters. I've never looked at it closely, but perhaps I should.

I know it doesn't seem this way, but I'm really not obsessing about this. Just trying to understand all of the issues surrounding it so that when I put my website together, at least I'm informed about my options and the risks.

The thing is, there is a "dark element" to those who steal images. My sister is having second thoughts about wanting to do a website about my nephew. The reason being that she took a class for work and learned of porn "artists" who troll websites looking for pictures of children - then digitally manipulate them into child porn images. I can't say I blame her for thinking twice about it - and wanting to protect images of her son from that kind of "use".

So yes, if someone really wants an image, they'll find a way to get it. But my reaction to that is not to give up and do nothing. It still seems reasonable to put up "reminders" that images are copyrighted.

Jeanie

This is a very interesting thread! I've been playing around with web design for a couple years now, I've learned HTML and I'm working on learning PHP and Flash right now so I can make a good website for myself and the home business I'm hoping to eventually start, so this information is very valuable to me, especially the .htaccess file. thanks for the info and links Doug and Jeanie! Hope you get everything sorted out ok Clare, that stinks!

- David :)

Those websites with Clare's images aren't accessible to me right now -- hopefully they are busy re-doing their site after eliminating her images. :)

Some very good info, links and discussion in this thread. I remember some years ago when AOL notified everyone that anything posted could be used by AOL for their purposes.

Jeanie, I understand your sister's worries about placing her son's images on the web -- someone, somewhere, might see them and make use of them in a sick fashion. Celebreties find their images reworked into nude or lewd images, or just plastered all over the world.

Any image uploaded to the web is liable to be taken for use without permission. Precautions can and should be taken to protect any saleable or otherwise important image -- those images that are for sale are usually posted very small and at very low resolution. But the final truth is -- if it's too important to lose, don't post it on the world wide web for everyone to see.

Jeanie,
Here in NY, the school websites are not permitted to show children from the school on their sites. With or without parental permission. This is for the very reason your sister is concerned. Sadly, people out there will do anything
Debbie

Quick update

I have had some responses from other image holders from the sites that are using there images - all were unaware of there work being used and have sent the following to the web site holder. Others have done the same as below.

Dear Xande Rêgo,

This is an invoice for the images that you are currently using on your sites without prior consent. This amount is due immediately.

Image Pure Invoice
Date 27 - 11 - 2002

Usage of photographs on http://www.dual.weblogger.terra.com.br/
£150.00 per photograph x3 = £450.00
Unauthorized usage of photographs and infringement of copyright
£250.00 per photograph x3 = £750.00

Usage of photographs on http://detodosnos.weblogger.terra.com.br/
£150.00 per photograph x3 = £450.00
Unauthorized usage of photographs and infringement of copyright
£250.00 per photograph x3 = £750.00

Total = £2400.00

All prices are in sterling pounds. Payments should be made by a bankers cheque and made payable to Clare Sadler, at -

Image Pure
PO Box 170
Dartford
DA1 3WG
United Kingdom.

You are requested to remove all images with immediate effect. Failure to do this will result in my having to contact your web site administrator and sponsors with a further invoice for infringement of copyright and a request that your site is withdrawn and blacklisted until all images are removed.

You should further be aware that I have contacted the other copyright owners whose images you are using without their consent.

Clare Sadler
Imagepure
London
UK

I am now going to look into the links that have been given here and impliment a few more security messures on my site.

Alot of work to be done today.

Thank you all for your support
Clare

I have recieved a email back from the web site holder, saying that he is not interested in paying the invoice, but has agreed to remove the links to my site on his web pages. Another photographer has had the same responce when he issued an invoice to the host.

The web site owner claims he is an “writer/artist”, I’m surprised he doesn’t have more respect for the rights of other artists.

So at the end a hopefully successful outcome - I will keep checking until my images are removed.

Clare

As I find items that can be put into the html I will list them here for others to use - hopefully they will be of use

When writing your site's html Meta tag's include this one

<META NAME="COPYRIGHT" CONTENT="Copyright © 2001 your information here, all rights reserved">

Clare

Here is some java script to disable right click in Internet Explorer and Netscape. Unfortunately it does not work in the Opera browser, But if it deters some people it is worth the effort.
This needs to be placed in between the <Head> </Head> section of the html


Sorry this script didn't work - I will find another and post it!!!

If you are using Dreamweaver you might find this useful

There are links here that you can use if your using other programs as well

http://www.dwfaq.com/Tutorials/Miscellaneous/copyright_protection1.asp

Clare I posted the question of image/page protction on a tech forum and got a reply suggesting the use of htaccess. there is a link below to explain this.

http://www.webmastersguide.com/htaccess-cgi/htaccess.htm


I don't know if it will be of any help to you.
Thanks for this thread, we all should be thinking about protecting our material.

Thanks Sandra,

I am going to contact my host to see if I can disable spongers using the images off my site. I will have to wait and see as to their answer. I am hopeful.

All links are useful and appresiated - thanks to all that have contributed to this thread.

As I find new ways of protection our images I will post them here.
Clare

Clare, Thanks for posting info as you find it. I'm still following this thread with great interest!

Sandra, Thanks for the additional info on htaccess. Similar info to what I found - but any info is welcome on what appears to be a very powerful tool!

Jeanie

I just came here from reading a thread at 3dcommune.com about the very same thing. It seems that a couple of people had stolen images from quite a few of the artists there. The owners of the sites as well as the hosting company were contacted and the sites were pulled. I really hate seeing this happen but unfortunately it happens quite often.

I have to say though clare, I like the idea of sending them a bill. That ought to be an eye-opener. :)

Rich

Copyright means nothing on the net, no matter what anyone says. If you don't want something used, then don't post it on the internet, like your real name. Right-click disabled is a joke. Watermarks and copyright symbols are both ugly and narcissistic.
You should be flattered.
Enjoy it while it lasts.

Mig

Heres the java script that I promised earlier, this disables right clicking to save images

This going between The <Head> </Head>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
<!--
<!-- This script and many more are available free online at -->
<!-- The JavaScript Source!! http://javascript.internet.com -->

<!-- Begin
function right(e) {
var msg = "Sorry, you don't have permission to right-click. These images are the copyright 2002 Your name goes here";
if (navigator.appName == 'Netscape' && e.which == 3) {
alert(msg);
return false;
}
if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' && event.button==2) {
alert(msg);
return false;
}
else return true;
}

function trap()
{
if(document.images)
{
for(i=0;i<document.images.length;i++)
{
document.images[i].onmousedown = right;
document.images[i].onmouseup = right;
}
}
}
// End -->

function MM_callJS(jsStr) { //v2.0
return eval(jsStr)
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>

This needs to be placed in the <BODY onLoad" > This took me ages to work out any problems just PM and I'll talk you through it!

;MM_callJS('trap()')

I am going to implement all the security features I can on my web site. If disabling the right click deters one moron from stealing my work then it has been worth the effort.

There is something nice about someone enjoying the work that you create, and that they like the images, BUT this does not give them the right to steal them! :angry:

Not only did thet steal my images but they had the cheek to use my server to access the images, using my bandwidth. Good bandwidth costs money ---MY MONEY---

You simply cannot take someone else's information or data without acknowledging who the creator was - or without paying for it, if required - for that is plagiarism. To believe the internet is a free for all for people to take or exploit what they want is a fallacy. The internet is used by businesses, researchers and others for the exchange of information and products. Genuine people seeking to further their personal achievements. But like all walks of life, it is also full of rogues who do not respect others. I guess this is what it boils down to. Respect of other's rights. Artists also have rights and need respect.

I've just made the first part of my web changes including the above meta and java script.

If anyone is interested in how it works this is an example! It's all up and running now - just uploaded it as well as a few more images.

What do you think? - I know its not going to deter the rouges but better than nothing!

Clare

I ahve also added a new stolen slash across the images that were taken. They only show up on there site not mine!

(2nd address) first address images have been removed.

I checked with my webhost and I'm happy to see that they DO allow me to use .htaccess - in fact, they have a couple FAQ answers which mention the use of this file.

I like the new images Clare! :)

Jeanie

A couple more questions

Does anyone know how to disable the save functions on IE when you float over an image?

and

Does anyone know how to stop your images being cached on another machine?

Jeanie,
Thanks, I have been making flowers my study at the moment. Hopefully once I have built up a big enough data base I can start to aproach image libraries (most I have found need you to have a minimum of 60 images!).

Clare

Does anyone know how to disable the save functions on IE when you float over an image?

Do you mean creating your own context menu? Or are you referring to the IE menu functions?

Does anyone know how to stop your images being cached on another machine?

If I understand your questions correctly, I don't think it's possible to stop this. The way the browsers work is that they download everything from your server to the viewer's Internet Temp files and then renders them so the viewer can see them. At least that's what I understood from all of my reading yesterday. I don't think there's a way to disable that b/c if it was disabled, then no one would be able to view your site.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jeanie

BigAl,
Thanks for the reminder I will add it to my list. Do you know how to do this?

Jeanie,

I feared that the cache can not be removed, lets hope we are both wrong.

When you float over an image in IE it shows symbols to save the image etc. I have no idea if this can be disabled! I can hope.

Clare

Clare, do a google search on "disable view source" and you'll get a ton of advice (on both sides of the debate on whether this is a good idea or not) - but also how it's done.

Oh yeah - now I realize what you're referring to. New in IE6 (it's not in earlier versions.) I'd try a google search on that as well.

Jeanie

This post (https://lists.latech.edu/pipermail/javascript/2002-September/004115.html) explains the problem pretty well, I think.
Jeanie

What an interesting thread (as many have noted).

Anyhow, I've been pretty curious, as I've done some of my own web programming and all as well.

I found this site that has an application (seems to work from the samples I've seen so far), but I'm also going to continue my own research.

Anyhow, $20 doesn't seem like a huge amount to "really" protect your site.

http://www.antssoft.com/htmlprotector/index.htm?ref=sprinks
Product: HTMLProtector

Interesting Jeffrey. It does say that it's Java-based though, so if someone turns off Java, would it still continue to work? In some of my browsing yesterday, I ran across a site that said that all (yes, they said "all") of the HTML protection schemes that are being sold are easily cracked. Yes, it would deter the casual user, but probably not someone who really wants your code/images.

Clare, I found a comment here (http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?SQID=48704&SPID=216&newpid=216&page=1&CFID=4839871&CFTOKEN=56657685) (in the middle of the page) that says that if you use frames and disable right clicks, then the only source available for downloading is the frame info. This does not prevent someone from getting the info from their history or temp files though.

Jeanie

One other thing I just came across. You can disable right click and use a browser window with no menus so they can't do a menu-based view-source. This might work for those times where you create a new window with a large image after someone clicks on a thumbnail. Then, they just close the window to get back to your page (or you have a "close" button in the window). Again it's not foolproof, because everything has to be downloaded to the client-side computer in order for the window to be viewed. But, it's another idea.

I wouldn't want to do this to my whole site b/c it would make navigation a pain in the butt, but I think it would work for pop-up windows showing image enlargements.

Jeanie

Clare, got all your security messages when I tried to "right-click", but as Al said, they can still link to your url, and they can still copy your images via "Print Screen" if they want. I imagine getting rid of the "sponging" on your website is Mission #1.

hey Clare,

it works just fine in IE, but in Opera it just brings up a slightly different menu, with the option to save still there, just to let you know. however, most people use IE or Netscape so by doing that, you're stopping most of the "petty thieves".

- David :)

I came across this idea when looking at securing images. Don't know if it would deter the really stubborn theives but it may be worth a try

http://suggestafix.com/articles/webmaster/secure-image.htm

Jeanie
Thanks for the links - This is tommorrows job!

CJ
Yeah as bigAl says you can still get them through the source but hopeful but tommorrow night I will have this sorted.

David
I haven't found a way round Opera yet. I normally use opera to access the internet so I checked that out earlier and found the same thing. If I find a way round this I will post it.

Thanks to all for the heads up, I think we all need to impliment security when we make web sites. This thread has certainly got some good info in it, thanks to all the input - it's like having 1000 pairs of eye's on a mission!

I have also found that my server will allow .htaccess, so that is good news.

Clare

Sandra, That is the same technique that Jeffrey posted about from the NAPP website. And, I was just thinking that this would be a good way around Clare's concern about the IE icons popping up whenever you run the mouse over an image. If you use the "transparent table" method, then even if they can save, it will only the a 1x1 transparent GIF.

Of course, that doesn't stop someone from taking a screenshot if they want it. Or reading the source to find the actual image filename. Just another trick to add.

If you haven't already found it, check out
this site (http://www.drpeterjones.com/hidden/hidden.php). I haven't had time to play with it yet, but if you can figure out what he did (and obviously some people have), it might be helpful. So far I've discovered that he disabled right clicks, used frames and the transparent table (GIF).

Jeanie

Sorry Jeanie and Jeffery, I didn't notice your posts. I was only trying to help.:blank:

Don't feel bad for posting duplicate info Sanda! The more info the better, and in this case, I found the link you posted to explain the technique in a slightly different way that clarified something for me - so that's GOOD!! Somehow, I'd gotten the idea that you had to resize the actual GIF image for each of your images that you wanted to put it over. In fact, you keep the GIF image at 1x1 pixel size and just specify the size in the HTML code. Makes it a lot easier and a lot faster to load!! So, thanks to you, I'll now implement it correctly! ;)

Regarding the "challenge" link I posted above, it didn't take me too long to track down the code, but he was pretty clever in naming the file. Hint: It has to do with the files cached on your hard drive. Now I just have to look at his actual code to figure out all that he did! ;)

Jeanie

It took a while but I have found the source code to jeanies link!!!

Wanna now how ..... na that would ruin the fun :) :)

Clare

Jeanie - I did it a different way!

Sandra - I second Jeanie in saying all posts are welcome. Yours answered a few questions for me and we have so many more to cover.

Another idea to consider for protecting images from being copied. I've had two people mention to me this evening that you can embed an image in Flash - and then the context menu doesn't give you the option of copy and saving is a SWF file - not a JPG or GIF.

See this site (http://wanspages.prodigy.net/bardolf/ClownFish.htm) for an example.

What I haven't determined yet is how much overhead (in terms of file size) is added by embedding an image in Flash. Anyone else know?

Jeanie

yep, that's one way of doing it, but you'd still have to use that script to disable the view source, since I can find the swf file by doing that (on the page you linked to for example, that file is: http://wanspages.prodigy.net/bardolf/Clown_Pics/topclown.swf
however, there are some big advantages to it:
Once it's saved as a swf file, it's a vector format so when you put it up on your site you can specify whatever size you want it to be scaled to (in pixels or percentage).
Also, when you save an SWF file in flash, you can choose an option called "protect from import" so even if they do manage to find your swf file, they can't do anything with it unless they just take a screenshot or something.
As for file size, because it's vector, it just saves information, not actual pixels, so there's almost no overhead besides the actual photo information. when you save the file, you also have the option of jpeg compression, and when I took the quality down to 50% on my test pic, the file size was a ways less than the original, and it was decent enough quality for web posting.
hope that info helps, I'm finding some good info that I didn't know before from this too.

- David :)

One thing about right-click disable -

This can be a huge pain to web surfers. I am constantly opening links in new windows by using the right click menu. The right-click disable is very annoying for people like me who don't want to loose your page but want to visit a link at your site. There are obviously ways around this but it is still a pain for your visitors.

Also, I don't know if anything has changed, but right-click disable never used to work in netscape.

When linking to another site from your own - get it to come up in a new window. This has the advantage of not loosing a poteintal client because the window with your information in is lost and they can't be bothered to look for it again and that when closing down the subsequent windows they are reminded what they went searching for.

You can also have the pop up windows to have a diferent handling, you can set the scroll bar - location bar - menu bar - status bar etc to be either active or not.

One of the things that I made sure of when I originally built my site was that there were ample buttons for navigation round my site. There is a contact on every page so If someone comes across something of interest it is not lost in there attempt to get in touch. Hopefully because I layed these links down, disabling the right click in my site will not have a detremental effect.

Unfortunately I have had to shut down my site on a temporary basis until I can impliment .htaccess and to hide the source code. This was not an easy discision. I emailed the sponger this morning and requested that if he did not remove my images by 12.00 GMT I would be informing his host and sponsors of his breach of copyright. I closed my site as I don't want him to have the opportunity to copy my images before I get a chance to stop him.

Clare
On mission .htaccess

I need some help again,

I just can't seem to get my brain around this .htaccess I know my server supports it because I rang them. Heres what I understand can someone please put it together so I can get this working. Java didn't seem a problem but this just makes no sence to me - I have probably been staring at it for far to long!

So heres what I understand
-You have to upload the .htaccess file to the route directory of your site
-You have to use ASCII to upload it - not binary
-The folder that you place the file in protects all sub folders unless other wise stated.
-I have gained this code from reading the links that have been posted here. This aparently stops people linking into your site to sponge images

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)imagepure.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule \.(gif|jpg)$ - [F]

Does this go in the original .htaccess file or do you have to have this in your images directory in another .htaccess file and have another file in the route directory

Clare :confused: :dizzy: :confused:

Clare -- as of 9:22 am MST - your site is up and images are accessible to copying (right click disabled still).

Does this mean you figured out .htaccess or is there a problem shutting down your site?

Na,

I just put my site back up, I am about to check if the htaccess has worked!

Clare


Ahhhhhhhhh! its still not working

Here's an excellent description for htaccess anti-theft usage:
http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/bandwidththeft.shtml

Working backwards in the posts that just came in...

Clare, my webhost indicates that an .htaccess file with the code you list should go in the directory of files you wish to protect. I assume that if you put that code in .htaccess file in the root directory, then it would apply to all files. I don't think you need to put it in both the root directory and your image directory, but I could be wrong. (Thanks Doug for that link!)

Chiquitita, thanks for your perspective on disabling right-click. I swear I saw some Java code which just disabled the Save As in the context menu rather than completely disabling the whole thing, but I might have been dreaming. I'll have to go look again. It does seem that whatever is implemented, there is going to be a trade off between ease of navigation and protection of images. It'll be a challenge to find the balance.

David, I appreciate the additional info on embedding images in Flash. I realize you could still find the SWF file without hiding the source, but if the "protect from import" is set when the file is saved - and if .htaccess is implemented correctly to prevent hotlinking, does it still matter if someone knows where the file is located? People can still do a screen shot with any of the ideas we've talked about. Hmmm... (answering my own question here...) I guess if someone wanted to put the image up on their site, they could simply take the SWF file and post it wherever. So that's not really that secure, huh?

This is whole topic is really complex!! (Either that or I'm a little dense.)

Jeanie

Thanks Doug for the link - I'll look at that one now

Jeanie,
I think this has got quite alot of us You are not alone!!

I would just like to say that I agree with chiquitita - I use right-click -> open in new window almost all the time (very rarely open in same window at all any more) and when I come across a site that is right-click disabled I tend to say words that my mother would be shocked to hear me use.

If I wanted to steal their @&*! images I could do an Alt-Print screen. All it does is put me in a very bad mood and generally mean I don't bother any more with that site.

I hate disabled right-click EVEN MORE than I hate advertising popups (and believe me, I hate advertising popups a LOT).

I shall put Mr. Rant away now (as my husband says to me when I get carried away on a personal bugbear)... :D

Leah,

Exactly! The thing that is most annoying is that when people enable that code they write stuff in it that says things like "Stop thief!" or some copyright stuff and all I am trying to do is open a new window. It's adding insult to injury. I am like you and usually don't bother with the site anymore and leave.

Jani -

It is very very very frustrating from the user's perspective when people add all kinds of confusing code to their pages which disables basic functions. I think you are right about there being a code which disables "save as" That is pointless though because there is still "copy" and like Leah pointed out "print screen"

The thing is if someone takes your images, there is not much they can do with them as web images except put them on their website... most of those websites have very few visitors because the people involved in these practices usually just do this on personal websites. Most professionals know better. Therefore, just tell them your lawyer will be in touch unless they take the images down immediately (if they have copied them). If they haven't copied them, just change the link to reflect a stolen image message or do the legal action thing. Most people will not fight you on it.

If they are original artwork, it is not hard to prove - who has the .psd file? case solved.

Chiquitita,

Yes, I know how frustrating it is when people put up roadblocks to basic functions because I run into that myself! And I'm not sure I like the idea of embedding images in Flash, because I know that Flash turns some people off (esp. those with slow connections- they don't even wait to see what's there.)

I realize that both print screen and files in Temporary Internet Files are big loopholes in any scheme. I'm curious to see whether a digital watermark (ike Digimark) survives a print screen. I'll try testing and report back.

On my hike today, I was trying to come up with a scheme such that I could have a page of thumbnails with R-click and view source enabled, but clicking on a thumnail would open a new window with R-click and menu buttons disabled. The new window would only contain the image. (I'm ignoring printscreen and cached files for this through process, just so you know I'm aware of that.) If the new window is just the image, then what basic functionality would I be hindering in terms of browsing from the user's perspective?

Then I started poking holes in my idea and decided that if the source was viewable on the thumbnail page, then the name of the html file would also be visible and easy to get with a "save target as" R-click. Which would in turn give the pathname of the image file.

OK, so what if I had .htaccess in place for my image directory. They couldn't hotlink to the image, but they still could type in the URL of that image directly and download it, right? Or do I understand .htaccess wrong?

As you can see, that was pretty much a useless discussion with myself. ;)

Seems like perhaps digital watermarks are the best bet - then at least I can get reports as to where the image takes off to. In that case, perhaps the easier I make it to copy the file, the easier it will be to track it?

My brain is hurting...

Jeanie

Jeanie,

A number of professional photographer websites that I visit do not disable right click ability to copy or save, don't embed Digimark watermarks or even their copyright in the image itself (it is visible in the caption below the copied image, and there might be a "hidden" key that would lead them to the image if it were posted on someone's website -- I have no idea about that). Their posted images are no larger than 3x5 or 4x6 at 72 dpi, and I think they consider that the best protection against stealing of the earning power of their images. They make money by selling large prints. I imagine that they have taken some steps against having another website link to theirs, simply to reduce bandwidth issues with their host.

This thread is a good reminder to people about what can happen when we post images (or text) on the internet -- it can be taken and used by someone else for purposes that please or displease us. It seems to me that is THE answer to the puzzle. If you think of posting something -- consider the consequences before posting, and if you do post something -- know that it may be taken by someone. You can make it less usable (smaller, lower resolution...), but if you're trying to impress someone with your images, you probably want to make them look good at a viewable (but smaller) size. Then hope that everyone who copies it, contacts you to BUY a large, high resolution copy. :)

CJ & Chuck,

I have been slowly coming around to that realization. (Apologies to anyone who posted the same thoughts at the beginning of the thread - I had to go through my own process on this one. ;) )

The truth of the matter is, I would be flattered if anyone found my images good enough to "steal". And (depending on the intended use) I wouldn't even mind having my images posted on someone else's site if they gave me credit for them. But, I would definitely be upset if someone tried to take credit for my work. That's why I'm thinking a digital watermark might be the answer for me. I could track where the images go that way. (OK, so I'm a bit of a control freak.) Digital watermarks do seem to have their limitations. For example, if you run a filter on the image, the watermark pretty much disappears. But, I did discover that it survives a print screen. The Digimark reader doesn't recognize it with the whole screen in the image, but if you crop down to just the picture, it does. And you can crop quite a ways down before the reader doesn't recognize it any more.

I will implement .htaccess (or something) to prevent hotlinking and stealing my bandwidth though. From some of the sites I've been reading since this discussion began, it appears that trend is growing. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't hamper browsing capabilities.

Well, that's my thoughts for the afternoon. I reserve the right to change my mind, of course. :rolleyes:

Jeanie

This has become a very valuable thread! I'm saving this info carefully since I'm going to be working on my own website as soon as I can get a good host. I share a viewpoint close to Jeanie's, I'm not too horribly worried about my material being used elsewhere (unless it's using my bandwidth) so I'll just be taking advantage of the .htaccess file and using the Digimark for a small copyright watermark in the corner (thanks for the info about digimark Jeanie, I didn't know how well that worked)

- David :)

Haven't mastered the quotation trick with this board, but I can copy/paste, and Jeaniesa writes,

I wouldn't even mind having my images posted on someone else's site if they gave me credit for them. But, I would definitely be upset if someone tried to take credit for my work. That's why I'm thinking a digital watermark might be the answer for me. I could track where the images go that way.

Glad to hear some sense coming from what I know are sensible people.
Does anyone like going into a museum and viewing the artwork under glass and from 20 yards away?

Keep reading...

Here's a trick I use for those who want to put a watermark on their images. I've been doing this for years and add it to images that I think might be ripped off, images that I put time into and care about. I've done it here at RP. Find a spot in the centre of the picture that has some confusion in it... like hair or fabric. Ramp up the brightness in an adjustment layer, then add a text layer above all and add your name or nic, and date, in tiny text. Lower the opacity of the text so you can barely see it. Discard the adjustment layer. Flatten.
If someone stole your work and you wanted to make an issue of this, all you have to do, provided they didn't blur the file or do something else to disfigure it, is to message the person instructing them to increase the brightness, perhaps lower the contrast, point them in the direction of your secret hiding spot, and voila, there's your private little stamp.

Somewhere on someone's site I read...

I am a freelance artist providing fine art and gothic photography. I gained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Photography in the Arts in 1997 from the University of West of England, Bristol.

Now, I don't know who this person is, the owner of the site, a friend, who knows for sure (right?), but I thought it would be exciting to attend this school and earn this degree, so I wrote the school for information, asking if I could earn a B.A. in photography at their school.

And they wrote me back,

"Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we do not run a BA
in photography."

Oh well, I guess that degree is back ordered and I'll have to look elsewhere.
And there's still more, thanks to freedom on the internet, but I say have your fun. Enjoy, but try not to pollute.

Mig

Originally posted by Mig
Somewhere on someone's site I read...

I am a freelance artist providing fine art and gothic photography. I gained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Photography in the Arts in 1997 from the University of West of England, Bristol.

Now, I don't know who this person is, the owner of the site, a friend, who knows for sure (right?), but I thought it would be exciting to attend this school and earn this degree, so I wrote the school for information, asking if I could earn a B.A. in photography at their school.

And they wrote me back,

"Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we do not run a BA
in photography."

Mig [/B]

Hello again Mig

That sentence is on my site - and yes I have got a degree from the University of West England Bristol. The Degree was taken at Swansea Institue of Higher Education. The degree authoiritazion body is the University of the West ofEngland, Bristol!

I am sure that the SIHE would be interested in your aplication.

No Pollution intended -Just facts
Clare


Now lets get back to helping each other with web site security which is what this link is all about!

Leah and Chiquitita,
Thank you both for your feed back, I am going to look at a way of just disabling the save function in the right click. I think this would be a better way round the problems. I myself use the right click - view in new window function and agree it will be ashame if people cannot use a site as they wish. I do how ever need to keep my security up so hopefully the two can work side by side.

I included in the warning message that pops up in my site a copyright notice as I didn't like the 'Sorry, you don't have permission to right-click.' this is impersonal and doesn't tell the user why. Do you have any suggestions as to a different message that will be better received if I can't find another way around this problem?

Chuck,
I quite like the idea of adding your url to your images. This would make them advertising if used on someone elses site - a fine plan. I may well do that today.




I know I have said this before but the thing that irritated me about someone stealing my images was the fact that I got no credit or link to my site. I was flattered that someone liked my images enough to want to use them - I just wished they had asked - I probably would have said yes! and sent them some via email, my only request would have been a link and credit.
I have got some ideas today for more security - but I will try them out first and then post the results.

Clare

Unfortunately I will have to upgrade my web server to gain access to the .htaccess url security - same company just a different type of account. At least now I know why it isn't working!

So I will have to go for disable view source and just keep a keen eye on any sponge attacks.

Clare

To stop further confusion I have changed the text in my about us page to the following :

I am a freelance artist providing fine art and gothic photography.
I gained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Photography in the Arts in 1997, at Swansea Institute of higher education, from the University of West of England, Bristol.

Hope this clears up any problems with checking my degree status, Mig.

-Quote -Mig-
Now, I don't know who this person is, the owner of the site, a friend, who knows for sure (right?)
-end Quote-

You can enquire at under my name Clare Sadler, I have never tried to cover my identity as I have nothing to hide. Do you :)

I have just added my url to all my images as Chuck recomended.

Plus even more images. A friend bought me some flowers for helping her out recently and I just can not stop taking photos of them they are so beautiful. :)

Clare

I just checked out your updated website Clare. I like the way you watermarked the rose I looked at. There are of course ways to get around the "no right click" so I think the watermark is much more effective.

I'm personally not concerned wether you have a degree or not.
You do have some very nice photographs on your site.:)

Thanks Gland :D

I agree there is more to life than qualifications - I was worried that a potential customer might come accross MIG and not commission me because they believe it (Mig that is who know's whether it's male or female!)

I was more upset as a photographer that also had his work stolen asked me about web site security and I told him to come here introduce himself and join our discussion. I also told him what a fantastic place this is and that there is no back bitting and everyone was friendly. Lets hope he has not been scared off - his work is very good and another member brings more variety and learning opportunities. I do hope he comes back .....

Clare

I agree Clare,this site is very friendly. It certainly has been a learning experience for me.

Hopefully he will come back. :)

Clare,

Nice new flower pics! :)

I've been doing a little more research on the web and found this great resource (http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Graphics/Theft/index.html). The section on How to tell if someone is stealing your graphics lists ways to search for graphics linked directly to your server - using the "search for graphics" feature of Alta Vista. Also, Lycos lets you search for pictures on the web.

The Protecting Images and Bandwidth (http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Graphics/Theft/scripts.html) of that same site gives a Java script for disabling right click OVER IMAGES ONLY. And it provides a CGI script for preventing bandwidth stealing if you don't have access to the .htaccess technique.

Also, the link that Doug provided (yesterday?) with info on implementing .htaccess had a link (http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/protectimages.shtml) to a technique for preventing hotlinking using a PHP script (provided).

Good luck,
Jeanie

Also, the Web Guard (http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/wbg1/web_guard_old.htm) site has some great "substitute graphics" on this page (http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/wbg1/bandit.htm).

Jeanie

Thanks Jeanie,

You web crawler you - and a very good one at that :)

Just taken a quick look at the first link - Very interesting. Also I know my web site supports cgi as I have a cgi bin so some code to go in here is much appreciated.

Glad you like the flowers - more to study yet - this web site is drawing me away from producing more images at the moment!! Hopefully it will all be as I want it soon. I am about to design a second web site for a friend and want to complete all of these issues before I start so that I can impliment them straight into the new site - save a bit of time.

The java script I gave earlier in this thread only disables the right click over the images.

Okay you have just posted again so I'll finish this to have a look

Clare

Oh I particualy like the substitute graphics - I will have to bookmark these just incase of future nurds!

Thanks for sharing

Clare

I just cracked up when I got to the one that says, "You, Sir, are a Dork!" I doubt I'd ever actually use that one, but it made me laugh just the same. :D

Jeanie

I like the fact that when you float over the image it say You Dork!:D

I can't remember if someone has already posted a link for this or not, but here is a link for providing a replacement context menu (http://www.summerholiday.org/freecode/Right_Click_-_Context_Sensitive_Menu(with_no_View_Source_or_Save_Image_As).html) when you right click.

Jeanie

I haven't seen this idea for "protecting" images on the web anywhere, but my brain is working overtime and wonder if anyone has thought of this before and it's just a dumb idea...

But, what about slicing images into 12-16 pieces and putting them back together in a table? ImageReady does this fairly easily/automatically, I think. Of course, someone can still "print screen", but this way, even the cached files are pieces of the image. Obviously, someone can put them back together if they really want them, but it makes it a bit more of a pain in the butt to do it. (I.e., they really have to want them.)

I just wonder if this adds siginificantly to the loading time of images? It also could make file management on the web server a nightmare. What other downsides am I missing? Or does this really do nothing to deter others from stealing images?

Jeanie

:lol: thanks for the link to the Web Guard's "substitute graphics" those are really funny! Re: slicing images: I actually find that kind of annoying when I'm viewing web pages, I'd rather just wait for a whole image to load, but I'm not sure about the people about dial up, since sometimes they like that better. I'm not sure about loading time/size, I'll have to let somebody else answer that one.

- David :)

Thinking more about slicing an image... If I don't also hide the source, then it's pretty much useless, b/c someone could just take the HTML needed to put the image back together and use it on their page. So, pretty much a waste of effort and just makes things more complicated.

Jeanie

With the thread involving topics of security and theft and plagiarism, etc., credibility becomes an issue all around - something about 'people who live in glass houses should not throw stones'.
Consider spell-checking your site, as this will surely get you further than fancy script and watermarks.
Lastly, you want 'some' theft of your images. It's good for business.

Mig

Originally posted by Mig
Lastly, you want 'some' theft of your images. It's good for business. Agreed if you're given credit. Do you also mean if you're not given credit? If so, how is that so?

I'm thinking of putting a "copy policy" on my site - something to the effect of "You're welcome to copy my images as long as you credit them to me and provide link back to this site." Seems like it would be free advertising that way.

Jeanie

Rather than making your images free to down load a better way might be the one Chuck mentioned - by placing a text url in your images if someone is sponging then they are automatically advertising your site. Other wise you might end up with your host calling for more money because your bandwidth is going all over the web. Along with the watermark this should ensure that people know that the images is yours.

Of course there are always going to be dorks out there who think it is fine to use other peoples images illegally but this is probably just because they haven't got the imagination to create anything themselves.

Clare

Jeanie,
Your work should not be given away free - its too good and you deserve recognition for it

Thanks for the compliment Clare.

Yes, of course you are right. My URL and watermark are a good way to ensure that advertising happens if the images are stolen. Of course, someone could go to the trouble of cloning that out if they really wanted. But, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Jeanie

Has anyone heard of a program called 'encript web'?, you can set it up do disable the right click, view source, and many other html effects.

I have been looking at this for a posibility for my site. It unforunately does not support Opera but works with IE and Netscape.

I was just wondering on the overall reaction to the lack of Opera and the security this has? Has anyone got this running and if so how do you find the program?

Clare

Getting credit would be nice if someone used your stuff, but even without credit you still win. This can happen in a variety of ways. People grab stuff off the net everyday, as we all know because we've all done it - there isn't anyone reading this who can honestly say they've never taken something from the net without permission. You may not have used it, but you took it anyway.

People take stuff for all sorts of reasons, but much of the time they just 'like' the picture, so they might e-mail it to friends, put it on their homepages, whatever. It gets around. People might see it, and ask, who did that?, where'd you get that? "I got it from some site called ImagePure."

I haven't read the whole thread here, but from what I understood from the beginning, images from Clare's site ended up on a Brazilian site that seemed to be about poetry (but I could be wrong). Now, I have two questions: one, how did Clare's pic end up 5,000 miles away, and two, how did Clare find out that her pic was being used on this site? It's great stuff!

This has happened to me twice that I know of, and one of them was in the most bizarre way; I won't get into it, except to say it was an 'adult' thing (unintended on my side) and it ended up on their splash page. Woo-hoo!

Check out the links section here... iconotrope.com (a friend) to see how some people have done it. I doubt there's any concern over right-clicking tho. They might be a little pretentious for e-cards, but what the... hey! now that's an idea! e-cards. Free advertising.

All the well-meaning advice given to Clare, and her knee jerk response in implementing these measures, has only made her site unpalatable, (but that's just one opinion). Most of the images are quite beautiful, so it's a shame. To each his own, good luck.

MIg

Thanks Chuck for your support.

There is a lot more to this than just a stolen image. I did not intend make my site unpalatable to anyone. If this has become the result then I am sure my stats will show this and I will have to rethink my security strategies. If my site still shows a growing amount of interest then I know that the people that visit my site realise that artists and photographers need to protect there images and have respect for this. They will also see that my images are of a high quality and hopefully commission me or pass my name on. (They will not think oh if I had been able to right click and copy the image I would have commissioned this artist, but because there is security here I will go elsewhere!) We want clients that respect our creativity. Respect = trust.

I view my web site as a online portfolio and I expect that the viewing public to use it this way. I don't call using images off my site for others use as there own acceptable.

Ask your self this:
If while trawling through photographers studios trying to get work experience and you have your hard copy of your portfolio stolen would you find this acceptable? and just think oh well someone is going to be using my work (your creativity) to get a job (that should be yours) and take the credit for what I have produced - oh well, at least I get some advertising out of it? No you wouldn't because that's a fairly naive attitude (do you think they will phone you up and say, oh by the way I have this fantastic job with loads of money - would you like my wages as I used your portfolio as mine to gain the job!)- that portfolio is yours and copyright is there for a reason.

We all expect a little bit of a work to be copied or page printed and no matter how much security we implement on our site there will always be someone out there who knows a way round the security we have put there.

In time maybe people will come to use the web as it was originally intended - as a source of international information. People will see others work as just that - someone else’s. Respect of others will again be recognised as very important. There are good honest people out there now, and a lot of them visit and share there experiences here - I am glad to be part of this learning and sharing environment.

As yet I can’t see a drop in interest in my web site in the stats - I need to leave this for a few weeks to get a proper indication of how security has or hasn't affected my site. I will keep this thread informed to share my experiences - and I am sure others will share theirs. Together we can make our sites not only secure, but the best they can be, with as much user friendliness as possible. I look forward to sharing and learning

Clare

Clare, about your inquiry on "encrypt web"... I haven't used it - or any others like it. But, in my recent websurfing, I came across a site on securing websites that basically said NONE of the web encryption products being sold were fool proof - and most were easily gotten around. I think that's because of the underlying web issues (i.e., the building blocks of these encryption products) which have been discussed in this thread. For example, a lot of the ones I looked at were written in Java, which if course can be turned off in the blink of an eye. So, my decision was not to follow the path of web encryption tools.

Jeanie

Thank Jeanie,

I have reservations about using web encription tools, one of my prime reasons for this is that some web surfing programs like opera don't allow you to view the pages. As the web is meant to be for all I see this as a bit of a down fall! I have not tried disabling the java to see if this program then fails but this is a good point - I will try this and get back to you.

I think all web encript programs are able to be decryted, but hopefully they might deter the average user. I think there is good and bad points about these programs and am still researching them as a maybe.

Clare

My 1st post on this board. You can translate that page using a free service at Free Translations (http://www.freetranslation.com/link.htm) . What I liked about the site is that you can make your own site translatable in up to 6 languages. A demo of the capabilities are at our Poodle's (http://www.redpoodle.com/ginger) web site.

Best,
Dave

I just picked up this tip from another board I'm on:

Re: the Microsoft "tool bar" that pops up over images and makes it possible for others to save or print your images? It can be turned off by putting

<META HTTP-EQUIV="imagetoolbar" CONTENT="no">

in the header information of your webpages.

Obviously, this doesn't stop anyone from right-clicking and/or using print screen. However, at least in my mind, it seems like that little toolbar almost gives permission for people to download and use your images. Why give that impression if you don't need to?

Jeanie

Jeanie

You are a complete star :) I have been looking for a way to stop that irritating microsoft float over from happening on my site - this will definately be on my next update.

Personally, I think this float over draws attention to the fact that you can save the image and there fore probably encourages copyright fraud - IMHO

I am so glad I can turn it off

Thank You
Thank You
Thank You

Clare :)

Glad you found this useful Clare! I haven't actually tried this yet, but I do hope it works.

Jeanie