Stolen web images (Translator Please!!)

[jeaniesa]

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

[dcarr]

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

[jrolinc]

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.

[dcarr]

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

[jeaniesa]

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

[platscha@cs.com]

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.

[jrolinc]

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....

[platscha@cs.com]

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.

[jeaniesa]

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

[d_kendal]

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

[CJ Swartz]

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.

[dcarr]

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

[clare]

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

[clare]

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

[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