I propose that the SC #1 concern become protecting the photographers and their work. I don't think it matters if it's a watermark or limited image viewing for non-members or serializing individual images, but one way or another I think this should become the 1st order of business. It's just too easy to steal photos from the site.
If you choose to put something online, then people can steal it.
What you probably need to ask yourself is how much you want to limit the vast majority of legitimate viewers in order to try to stop "image theft". The second question to ask is how much use someone can get out of the low res images that get posted on here. If someone is "stealing" shots just to stick them on a myspace, it's unlikely that is causing financial loss.
It is a priority, however there is a limit as to what methods can be used without seriously impacting the beauty of the image. If an image can be displayed, it can be stolen, period.
This has actually been discussed at length on several occasions here. A search of the forum archives should produce hours of fine reading.
So long as any such change is switch-offable.
Currently anybody saving my images gets a filename indicating Image_Reuse_Prohibited which is entirely untrue and not something I believe I ever agreed to.
Edit: Unless said image is currently being voted on which kinda gives the impression that those images are fair game.
Just a thought. In coding can the image be put as the background image and a global transparent image on top? That way when an image is right clicked, the person will be saving the global transparent image. In other words they would be saving a true transparent gif image, not the image because it would be set as a background image.
Just a thought. In coding can the image be put as the background image and a global transparent image on top? That way when an image is right clicked, the person will be saving the global transparent image. In other words they would be saving a true transparent gif image, not the image because it would be set as a background image.
If someone wants the image, they will just use a screen capture. Again, if it displayed on the screen, it can be stolen.
I'd strongly suggest, for anyone interested in the details of protection strategies, to refer to previous threads on this forum. There is a wealth of information there.
I propose that the SC #1 concern become protecting the photographers and their work. I don't think it matters if it's a watermark or limited image viewing for non-members or serializing individual images, but one way or another I think this should become the 1st order of business. It's just too easy to steal photos from the site.
Definatly a dead horse, without alot of watermarking anything u do does not matter.
Unwatermarked images can be stolen, the transparent image trick that flickr uses i could easily use firefox's way around it lmao. But as kirbic says a screen capture and then crop and save in a lossless format.
If it can be seen it can be captured...bottom line.
Disabling right click "save as..." just makes the resourceful people (and they are the ones grabbing other's shots) use one of many different methods to snag a shot.
My question to those that believe that their shot can be protected when publicly displayed on the internet would be:
Outside of watermarking, what do the other sites that you share your photos do to protect your images? If all sites you display your stuff don't protect it then it is a moot point.
For me, watermarking will probably be the last straw for DPC. Makes no sense to vote on a bunch of pictures with "Proof" plastered across the front of it.
The best thing to do when posting photos online is to post them at the smallest possible size and the lowest possible quality level. If someone steals your image, they are very limited as to what they can do with it.
as pointed out, not much can be done to keep your photos from being stolen... shoot look at some of the recent forum threads and you'll see where dpcers have taken photos from other photographers to post in the forums... mostly to make fun of the photographer..
as pointed out, not much can be done to keep your photos from being stolen... shoot look at some of the recent forum threads and you'll see where dpcers have taken photos from other photographers to post in the forums... mostly to make fun of the photographer..
I agree that this is improper, but it is different than taking a photo from someone and claiming it as your own.
I agree that images will be stolen, but taking the point of view that nothing should be done to help prevent it is stilly, IMHO. Bad things happen in the world, but we all can help reduce it's frequency.
Yes, this has been spoken about at great length, but the problem hasn't been solved so it's worth mentioning. Forum folks always love to site old threads, as though a discussion 8 months ago (hypothetical) should answer all of my concerns and the topic should be dropped. It doesn't work that way in life, do we all stop talking about things we've already discussed? I digress, This is still an issue and at least flickr is attempting to help the problem. I know dpchallenge is too, but I simply wanted to voice that it still is a concern of mine as it should be with all artists who value their work.
Don't get me wrong, I love the site. Clearly. But since there's a section on the forums for the users to suggest improvements of the site, I'm bringing my suggestions. It's hot in this kitchen.
Oh, thanks to RainMotorsports for the private message explaining how people get around all kinds of protections. True, I knew about them already but still, thanks.
honestly if there is not a way around screen print then it will never work. i woul rather Langdon work on things that will make a difference that we can see. the trans[arent gif would help some but still how much money would you lose over a 640 px image.
honestly if there is not a way around screen print then it will never work. i woul rather Langdon work on things that will make a difference that we can see. the trans[arent gif would help some but still how much money would you lose over a 640 px image.
as pointed out, not much can be done to keep your photos from being stolen... shoot look at some of the recent forum threads and you'll see where dpcers have taken photos from other photographers to post in the forums... mostly to make fun of the photographer..
I agree that this is improper, but it is different than taking a photo from someone and claiming it as your own.
While you may think this was improper, it was done with the whole and total agreement of all of the photographers participating.
as pointed out, not much can be done to keep your photos from being stolen... shoot look at some of the recent forum threads and you'll see where dpcers have taken photos from other photographers to post in the forums... mostly to make fun of the photographer..
I agree that this is improper, but it is different than taking a photo from someone and claiming it as your own.
While you may think this was improper, it was done with the whole and total agreement of all of the photographers participating.
So someone went to Leonard Nimoy and brought his photo to these forums with his entire consent?? and Tony Overbee?
in the header of the page add a php code so that when someone presses ctrl + screen print (and whatever mac keys) it will send to a hyperlink that says, "Screen not allowed at this site due to copyright rules".
Could that code be done? is it possible?
If this could be done then in theory when they press ctrl + PrtScn it would send then to the link in stead of allowing a screen capture.
in the header of the page add a php code so that when someone presses ctrl + screen print (and whatever mac keys) it will send to a hyperlink that says, "Screen not allowed at this site due to copyright rules".
Or do like I do and take crappy photos, no-one in their right mind would steal mine. None of my challenge entries have been stolen, which backs up my opinion. These people are attracted to pretty pics.
in the header of the page add a php code so that when someone presses ctrl + screen print (and whatever mac keys) it will send to a hyperlink that says, "Screen not allowed at this site due to copyright rules".
Could that code be done? is it possible?
That's an excellent idea
when you open a photo the file is on your comnputer if you open the cache you can see it :)
Or do like I do and take crappy photos, no-one in their right mind would steal mine. None of my challenge entries have been stolen, which backs up my opinion. These people are attracted to pretty pics.
Hey, thats me. I have never seen any of my photos taken. Still no one should be allowed to steal anyone's photos, good or bad.
