Sultanpepa Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Just putting this out there for your interest - http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/new-photography-site-uses-smart-frame-technology-to-protect-copyright/s2/a563014/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Interesting - will need to look at in action and do a bit morer research. I may then look at how (and if) I can build it into my web site redevelopment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Spiers Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 OK getting techie but it sounds like there is a script which delivers the image instead of linking direct to the image. The script hides the true location of the file so that you can never link direct. Also probably something in the script to ensure that it is displayed correctly i.e. with a frame. Probably a bit of jQuery in their as well to detect the print screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 OK getting techie but it sounds like there is a script which delivers the image instead of linking direct to the image. The script hides the true location of the file so that you can never link direct. Also probably something in the script to ensure that it is displayed correctly i.e. with a frame. Probably a bit of jQuery in their as well to detect the print screen. Sounds likely - I am going to ask about it with a serious techie guy at a client's tomorrow. Problem is any security a person can devise another can crack (eventually). It is about making it difficult for all but the serious thief; but once it is cracked the tools become universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 OK getting techie but it sounds like there is a script which delivers the image instead of linking direct to the image. The script hides the true location of the file so that you can never link direct. Also probably something in the script to ensure that it is displayed correctly i.e. with a frame. Fairly straightforward to do provided you are able to configure the web server yourself (which most people on hosted sites can't). I've been planning to do it on my site for many years but since I watermark everything it's not such a pressing need and I have too many other things vying for my time. The biggest drawback is that if you don't serve the JPEG as a JPEG file, your web browser won't cache it and it will have to re-fetch the image every single time you fetch the page. If you've got a fast connection and unlimited bandwidth this isn't a problem but people who are still struggling with slow connections or bandwidth caps may give up on your site if they think it's costing them time and/or money to view. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 OK getting techie but it sounds like there is a script which delivers the image instead of linking direct to the image. The script hides the true location of the file so that you can never link direct. Also probably something in the script to ensure that it is displayed correctly i.e. with a frame. Fairly straightforward to do provided you are able to configure the web server yourself (which most people on hosted sites can't). I've been planning to do it on my site for many years but since I watermark everything it's not such a pressing need and I have too many other things vying for my time. The biggest drawback is that if you don't serve the JPEG as a JPEG file, your web browser won't cache it and it will have to re-fetch the image every single time you fetch the page. If you've got a fast connection and unlimited bandwidth this isn't a problem but people who are still struggling with slow connections or bandwidth caps may give up on your site if they think it's costing them time and/or money to view. Alan But are those people with slow connections going to be serious image buyers? Might help weed out the cheapskates and the impecunious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 But are those people with slow connections going to be serious image buyers? Might help weed out the cheapskates and the impecunious. I have a slow connection and a bandwidth cap. I'm not a cheapskate. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 But are those people with slow connections going to be serious image buyers? Might help weed out the cheapskates and the impecunious. I have a slow connection and a bandwidth cap. I'm not a cheapskate. Alan Which is why I suggested for the impecunious as well. those who can't really afford to buy stock images. I also visit areas in the UK where I can't get a 4G signal and broadband is limited. The point I was making was that most major users of images do not tend to be based in such remote rural areas out of reach of top end communications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 But are those people with slow connections going to be serious image buyers? Might help weed out the cheapskates and the impecunious. I have a slow connection and a bandwidth cap. I'm not a cheapskate. Alan Which is why I suggested for the impecunious as well. those who can't really afford to buy stock images. I also visit areas in the UK where I can't get a 4G signal and broadband is limited. The point I was making was that most major users of images do not tend to be based in such remote rural areas out of reach of top end communications. Well I don't know about you, but I don't really want any visitors to my site to find it irritatingly slow or expensive to access. I'm not in a remote area - I live in a town in a populous region but I have an absolutely shit phone line. I wouldn't want to deter people like from me from visiting my site again and again. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Quite a few infringements I've found lately are people using a camera shooting the screen and using Photoshop or other methods to make the image look like it was not photographed on a computer screen. I found one girl that had quite a few of my images that ran larger in online publications and that's what she did because she could not right click. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Quite a few infringements I've found lately are people using a camera shooting the screen and using Photoshop or other methods to make the image look like it was not photographed on a computer screen. I found one girl that had quite a few of my images that ran larger in online publications and that's what she did because she could not right click. Sounds like sledgehammer and nut to me. Why go to that trouble when you can simply do a screen grab of the image? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 They can get a higher res image if they shoot the image on the screen on their cameras to sell on CD's as well as have prints and merchandise made. I've had that situation in the past and sued. I found a whole slew of my images on Photobucket being sold for high res prints starting at $50 and up! I am going after all parties on this one. I'd like to legally go after the woman that did this too.And by her posting my celebrity images,hundreds of others stole those and linked to her as well.L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 They can get a higher res image if they shoot the image on the screen on their cameras How? Surely the camera can't resolve pixels that aren't there? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Well in a sense it can. Photograph a screen with a high res MP camera in raw and you will have enough data there to make a print say up to 8x10.Some of my photos online have run decent enough size where they've done that. I took someone to court years ago for that and in discovery that was what was found. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Sure, I don't doubt that they do do it. But if an image is displayed on a screen at x by y pixels, the only way a camera can get higher resolution out of it is by interpolation, and I would have thought it was a lot quicker and simpler to do a screen grab and interpolate in Photoshop, and probably get more consistent results into the bargain. But who knows? People will find all sorts of odd ways to break the rules. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 If you can see a photograph on a screen you can screengrab and save it, no need to faff about photographing the screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clupica Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 One important point that is implied is that the images using this technology won't come up in a Google image search; meaning crippled or no SEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.