Ok! Setting up a web site. What to do about image security?

[riooso]

I have been getting very active in shooting and scanning and taking the time to get fully back into photography. I am about to get a web site going and the question of image security is really becoming a major concern for me.
I have worked hard to get images that I have and would like to present them. Some of the things that I have used in the past have been the usual visible watermark, and posting small images in 72 dpi format but.....you all know the usual gymnastics.
Would certainly appreciate some input about the best approach to get going. I know that some hosting sites that offer full protection and then there are digital watermarks by, Digimarc, for instance.
I am leaning towards Koken for the Management System to start with because of the control that I have over content and they are a good intermediate place to start.

Wish I could be more direct about the question but because my knowledge base is limited the questions haven't really formed yet.


Thanks in advance,
Richard

[Jac@stafford.net]

I know that some hosting sites that offer full (image copying) protection

Impossible; a sign of dishonesty, trying to con the uninformed.

[Ari]

Richard, I have found that if someone wants to steal your images, they will, if they are adept at that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, it comes with the territory of posting photos on the internet.

[gregmo]

Register your images with the Copyright Office in Wash, DC. Can be done online with all of your images in a single batch for $35 or so.

[riooso]

Wow! I was expecting to find some way to secure my images. This is disconcerting!

[John Kasaian]

Pin your prints to the inside of a rain coat, drive around the country in the '46 Plymouth sedan and show them to anyone who wants to look.
At least your images will be secure (unless you forget your rain coat somewhere!)

[Preston]

Pin your prints to the inside of a rain coat, drive around the country in the '46 Plymouth sedan and show them to anyone who wants to look.
At least your images will be secure (unless you forget your rain coat somewhere!)

Classic! :D

As has been said, if your images are on the Web, someone will figure out a way to snag them. Registering your work with the copyright office won't prevent them from being swiped, but you'll have a stronger case if you catch the perpetrator.

--P

[ic-racer]

Wow! I was expecting to find some way to secure my images. This is disconcerting!

No one can see the images unless they are downloaded to the user's computer. That is how the internet works.

[riooso]

I guess you all are right. I was hoping something like Digimarc would be helpful.

R

[EdSawyer]

There is no security possible. If the image can be seen on a screen, it can be copied.

[riooso]

Pin your prints to the inside of a rain coat, drive around the country in the '46 Plymouth sedan and show them to anyone who wants to look.
At least your images will be secure (unless you forget your rain coat somewhere!)

Now, that is funny! The only thing wrong with that scheme is that you might possibly be taken for a pervert of some sort! You know, the coat? Guess it is ok if you are wearing all your clothes! LOL!

R

[Jac@stafford.net]

I guess you all are right. I was hoping something like Digimarc would be helpful.

R

It is a good thought, but Digimarc is quite easily broken - the embedded text/image can be removed. I did it many years ago as part of a project looking for protection. It is really intended as a service that scans Internet images for their code.

.

[paulr]

Truly, the one active thing you can do is register the copyrights of your images (this just allows you to collect greater damages if you sue someone).

As much as I agree this is a good idea, I'll confess to not having done it. I just don't imagine my images are likely to be stolen in a way that causes material damages. I've had a photo website for 17 years now; so far I've only once seen an unauthorized use that annoyed me. I managed to get it taken down.

Another thing you can do is keep the pixel dimensions of the image small enough that people won't be able to make great looking prints. Mine are around 1200 pixels wide ... big enough to look nice on a good sized monitor, but impossible to get a nice print bigger than 5x7 or so. If someone really wants to pin a 5x7 of one of my images to their fridge, bless them.

A copyright notice, written in non-ranting-crazy-person language certainly can't hurt. Something like "all images on this site are copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission." Or whatever.

Please do everyone a favor and skip the watermark. They're just ugly and distracting. Look at the sites of people who sell work for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. I doubt you'll see watermarks. They just cheapen everything

[fishbulb]

If you put an image, or text, or anything on the internet, or even on a computer connected to the internet, someone can steal it.

The question to really ask yourself is: are my images good enough that anyone is GOING to steal them? Even if you are the best photographer in the world, you can upload them at 400x600 pixels at 72ppi and it's unlikely that anyone will want them. But the downside is that no one will be able to see very good representations of your work.

Installing a basic right-click protection script/plugin can help prevent casual downloading but it won't stop an image-harvesting robot (which there are tons of). Small file size will stop the robots though, which usually harvest large size images and then resell them, or use them as content for wallpaper sites with advertisements.

Sure, you could try and sue them if you find your images there, but you'll likely find out that the site is hosted in Russia or China or whatever. So don't count on lawsuits to save you, or make you any money. Occasionally you read about a good settlement from copyright infringement, but only of the infringer is a large developed-economy company with a reputation to protect.

The most reasonable way to do it, in my opinion, is just put your images on your website at a reasonable size that allows you to show them off or sell them, but isn't so huge that they'll be attractive to steal. For me this is 900px on the long edge, 72dpi. For your website design it might be something different though. The website '500px' started out with a 500px default size, but I think its bigger now due to the ever-increasing size and pixel density of modern screens.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This might be a good opportunity to mention to Mac users the program called ScreenShot PSD available in the App Store. Free.

It captures your screen, and all windows-within-windows as individual Photoshop layers.
I used it for development. Very clever and handy.

[paulr]

The question to really ask yourself is: are my images good enough that anyone is GOING to steal them?

Or ask what you mean by "steal." Do you care about someone using your image as their pc wallpaper? Or hot-linking to it with a mention of your site? I don't.

I think the only kind of stealing that results in damages is unauthorized commercial use. Like if you saw Nike using your image on its site. The likelihood of this is less dependent on how "good" your work is than on how "commercial" it is. Perhaps ironically, the more your images look like stock catalog cheese, the more danger you likely face of theft.

The good news is that big companies usually only do this as a result of outrageous oversights, and they can easily be forced to pay up.

[Bill Burk]

I guess the bigger problem is how to control what happens when someone types your name into Google, does a search and chooses the "Images" tab.

Do only the photographs you authorize appear?

[riooso]

Thanks everybody. Your input so far is helping me close in on what I need to do.

Thanks,
R

[Light Guru]

I guess the bigger problem is how to control what happens when someone types your name into Google, does a search and chooses the "Images" tab.

Do only the photographs you authorize appear?

Nope just about any photo that is on a webpage that has your name will probably appear.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I guess the bigger problem is how to control what happens when someone types your name into Google, does a search and chooses the "Images" tab.

Do only the photographs you authorize appear?

You got a good answer, and here's another tip: Google has Search by Image (https://images.google.com/imghp?hl=en&gws_rd=ssl) where you upload an image of your own and they try to find it in their image database. I have done it with just a few of my photos and they found several sites with them. My name was nowhere on the pages. It is still a relatively new project and computationally difficult thing to do, so not finding any is not proof that your pictures are not out there.

Another similar search is TinEye (https://www.tineye.com/) but it did not find what Google did.
.

[ic-racer]

I don't think anyone can 'steal' an image from a public internet address. The internet is a means to transfer data from your computer to other computers. Giving the image data to the general public is the whole idea of 'posting' an image on the internet. Alternately you can do like some popular image sites and not let anyone see your stuff until you get a credit card number from them.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I don't think anyone can 'steal' an image from a public internet address. The internet is a means to transfer data from your computer to other computers. Giving the image data to the general public is the whole idea of 'posting' an image on the internet.

Indeed, that was a founding principle of the 'net, "Share what you know", and freely if I may add.


Alternately you can do like some popular image sites and not let anyone see your stuff until you get a credit card number from them.

I'm not aware of any such, but I'm sure I will in time. Capitalization seems pervasive. One thing that irritates me beyond generally benign capitalization are the research publishers who work like the devil to make publicly funded research unavailable without daunting fees. But I digress.
.

[Jim Noel]

If it is on the web, or even in an e-mail it is captured almost instantly by Chinese hackers.

[iamamro]

A copyright notice, written in non-ranting-crazy-person language certainly can't hurt. Something like "all images on this site are copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission." Or whatever.

Please do everyone a favor and skip the watermark. They're just ugly and distracting. Look at the sites of people who sell work for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. I doubt you'll see watermarks. They just cheapen everything

I excellent advice here. ↑

Those copyright notices look ugly and are very distracting.


Learn to not worry about it too much. I doubt anyone will steal your images and as everyone has said, it's the nature of the Internet that anything displayed on screen can be copied. Just make the images too small to make good prints from and offer your photos for sale - that gives people a legal way to have a copy.

Good luck!

[Will S]

I would encourage using a creative commons license for your images along with a digital watermark (as opposed to the traditional visible kind) if you are really paranoid. Disable right-click and copy/paste too (javascript). Google's bots can be stopped as well, but then people can't find your site. :-) I'm sure a lot of photo sharing sites have this kind of stuff built in. I know smugmug does for sure. I don't quite agree with everyone who says that everything is instantly harvested by hackers as soon as it is put on the web. Well, at least for my images anyway.. I can't even get my wife and kids to want to look at them! There just isn't that big a market for pictures of rocks, plants, and everthing else I like to shoot!

[fishbulb]

If it is on the web, or even in an e-mail it is captured almost instantly by Chinese hackers.

Well, hackers of every/any nationality really. And lets not forget the NSA, CIA, FBI, and all the rest.

[tgtaylor]

Why not attach a self-destruct program with every download that erases the image after a period of time has passed.?

Thomas

[Tin Can]

Why not attach a self-destruct program with every download that erases the image after a period of time has passed.?

Thomas

You mean like this (http://petapixel.com/2011/01/17/x-pire-software-adds-a-self-destruct-feature-to-your-digital-photos/)?

But that does not stop screen grabs.

[tgtaylor]

Yep, that's it.

Thomas

[Taija71A]

... Disable right-click and copy/paste too (javascript)...


... Installing a basic right-click protection script/plugin can help prevent casual downloading...


There is no security possible. If the image can be seen on a screen, it can be copied.


Ed is correct...

If the 'Image' can be seen on a Screen... It can easily be copied by someone, with even a 'Very basic' -- Knowledge of computers.
--

-Tim.
________

[Will S]

Ed is correct...

If the 'Image' can be seen on a Screen... It can easily be copied by someone, with even a 'Very basic' -- Knowledge of computers.
--

-Tim.
________

Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that it was protecting anything. It is just one of the things you can do if you are paranoid and want some sense of security. Like taking off your shoes and giving up your nail clippers at the airport. Anyone can turn off javascript in their browser and avoid it easily.

Something like this is interesting too (found on stackoverflow):
<div style="background-image: url(YourImage.jpg);">
<img src="transparent.gif"/>
</div>

I have worked with a lot of people who believe "the only way to be secure is to put it in a locked room with no windows" and use that as an excuse to do nothing. There are things that can be done and that should be done depending on the situation. (I'm a javascript/java programmer fyi). The question is, should you do them? I think a creative commons license is a far better choice. And, obviously, registering copyright as was suggested earlier.

[tgtaylor]

Isn't there a program that prevents file copying by screenshot?

Thomas

[fishbulb]

Isn't there a program that prevents file copying by screenshot?

Thomas

You could write your own code to interlace your images, so that people have to screenshot it twice, and then put the image back together in photoshop. See: http://www.patrick-wied.at/blog/image-protection-on-the-web

No method will ever prevent your image from being easily copied. At the end of the day it depends on a lot of questions:

1) Are my photos really that good that people will copy them in the first place? (Mine definitely aren't.)
2) If someone copies them, will I be able to find out? (reverse searching hundreds or thousands of images?)
3) If someone copies them, how much will I really be damaged in dollar terms? (commercial vs. non-commercial use)
4) What will it cost to sue someone, and what are the legal expenses if I am unsuccessful in my lawsuit? (lawyers aren't cheap, especially for cross-border suits)
5) How much do watermarks effect the visual impact of my images? Is a watermark a reasonable approach in this situation?
6) How much do I know about web design, and how much time do I want to spend trying to prevent image copying vs. doing other things?
7) How big do my photos need to be for my website to work as intended? Do I really need to post high-res photos online?

Things to ponder when designing a website and worrying about copy protection...

[Jac@stafford.net]

You could write your own code to interlace your images, so that people have to screenshot it twice, and then put the image back together in photoshop. See: http://www.patrick-wied.at/blog/image-protection-on-the-web That article is just so wrong.


6) How much do I know about web design, and how much time do I want to spend trying to prevent image copying vs. doing other things?

You don't know very much, apparently.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Isn't there a program that prevents file copying by screenshot?

No.
.

[Tin Can]

I quit a small format forum, because one of the biggest contributors was a nut case. When I got my new printer I asked him if I could download a full rez image he had posted, on the forum, to test my printer. He gave his online permission.

I downloaded his full rez D800E file and printed one 8.5 X 11 and pinned it to my wall. It wasn't very good printed on my Canon Pro1, not the printers fault, the image was not color corrected. It was boring and flat. Not Raw, but jpeg.

A few months later I politely 'chatted' about the image on the same forum and he proceeded to publicly call me a thief. Mr Montana, bird shooter, is a jerk.

I never 'shared' his precious file and I got to wonder why a genius shooter that dominated a public forum posted full rez images!

Soon after I sold my D800 and joined this forum.

[fishbulb]

You don't know very much, apparently.

I'm sure that's the case. The wisest man knows that he knows nothing. ;)


That article is just so wrong.

What specifically is wrong in that article? Each of the image protection demos they posted appear to work as described in the article.

[Leszek Vogt]

Make a copy of the pic stamp size or around 600kb on the long side. Watermarks can be lifted or altered. If you send others stuff that's full in strength, and the photo is of decent quality, it's likely that someone may spot the picture somewhere on the globe...and not necessarily on the internet.


Les

[adelorenzo]

My approach is to just let them go. I license my images as Creative Commons but even then most people don't know how that works and, frankly, I don't much care if they don't follow the terms. My stuff's been posted quite a few places and occasionally in print as well. I'd rather worry about making new images and, besides, among the millions of photos being posted every day (or hour, or second?) if someone likes mine well enough to use them then good for me.

The "value" of an image online is zero. So why worry about it?

[Taija71A]

That article is just so wrong... You don't know very much, apparently.

I too agree with Jac...
That the 'cited' Article: http://www.patrick-wied.at/blog/image-protection-on-the-web

... Is just total #^_9$•\∞%-§/7¢¶#.



I'm sure that's the case. The wisest man knows that he knows nothing...

What specifically is wrong in that article?

Let me see...
How about 'Absolutely' Everything!



... Each of the image protection demos they posted appear to work as described in the article.

Really???

I don't think so...


127595



-Tim.
_________

[paulr]

This thread goes on and on, but I still don't see a specific mention of what anyone's afraid of. Maybe if that were more clear someone could make a meaningful recommendation.

I think we've already ascertained that the answer isn't site security, since there's no such thing.

[Bill Burk]

You got a good answer, and here's another tip: Google has Search by Image (https://images.google.com/imghp?hl=en&gws_rd=ssl) where you upload an image of your own and they try to find it in their image database. I have done it with just a few of my photos and they found several sites with them. My name was nowhere on the pages. It is still a relatively new project and computationally difficult thing to do, so not finding any is not proof that your pictures are not out there.

Another similar search is TinEye (https://www.tineye.com/) but it did not find what Google did.
.

Yours is the sensible answer.

I was being a bit presumptuous - suggesting that you have finally "arrived" when a Google search for your name on the "Images" tab... actually pulls up relevant photos.

Try it with "Sebastio Salgado" and you'll see what I mean. At least a couple pages of your good stuff should come up first.

[AtlantaTerry]

I have read all of the postings in this thread so far and y'all keep saying to use 72DPI.

But that is totally wrong. DPI is a PRINTER specification and has nothing to do with displays.

Therefore as a simple protection, just set the DPI to 1. Yes, one. Everyone will be able to view the image on their computer but the stolen image will not print.

[djdister]

I have read all of the postings in this thread so far and y'all keep saying to use 72DPI.

But that is totally wrong. DPI is a PRINTER specification and has nothing to do with displays.

Therefore as a simple protection, just set the DPI to 1. Yes, one. Everyone will be able to view the image on their computer but the stolen image will not print.

Still not the right answer. The key is overall image size in pixels. Make your posted image file no larger than say 400 x 600 pixels and it won't look very good if someone tries to print it any larger than a thumbnail in size. They can try to upsize it by interpolation, but the image quality will suffer so it won't print very well in a large size.

[towolf]

I’ve always disliked it when photographers only post tiny pictures. When you shoot an LF landscape and merely post a 400x500 version of it, then it’s nothing more than a thumbnail.

My Flickr is set to apply CC license to all photos and I always upload full res now that flickr is essentially unlimited. I want to be able to scroll around at 100% in other images (because that’s fun) and offer the same to others. Why share with strings attached?

But then I also had my wifi open an unencrypted for anyone to use for years.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[... snip good wisdom ...] What specifically is wrong in that article? Each of the image protection demos they posted appear to work as described in the article.

The author chose real examples that work if one ignores the easy work-arounds. Other things he proposes in words are not supported by real life possibilities (such as having you write a program), or include major compromises such as a special client program that almost nobody would except. By that I mean you have to download their software to your computer to download the (presumably larger than screen) image. The hooks involved in such a compromise are unacceptable and risky. I recall a fellow who asked, unabashedly, "How come when I download porn I get a virus?" It was due to using a special program he downloaded to his computer.

If I want to allow someone to download a high resolution image from clicking on a smaller image, I will use an ftp url to an anonymous ftp server.

Regardless, it is good to remember that if the eye can see the image, it can be captured.

[Greg Miller]

Creative Commons will not protect your images from unauthorized use. Creative Commons simply specifies who may use your images for free. Only registering your Copyright with the Library of Congress will provide any protection. That is pretty easy and pretty inexpensive to do.

Grabbing an image form a web page is so simple (whether the image is split in two and displayed as 2 side by side images or not). On a PC, simply hit CTRL + PrintScreen and the entire screen is copied to the clipboard. Then paste that into Photoshop and you can do what you like.

DPI is irrelevant in a monitor. The image file is x numbers of pixels and those pixels are displayed regardless of what the embedded DPI number is. Changing DPI to 1 does absolutely nothing (just bring the image into Photoshop and change the DPI if you want to print it).

The bottom line is if someone wants to steal your image in the internet, they can. If you want to protect your image, then register your copyright. But if you are interested in people seeing your work, NOT having a web site to show your work is not an option. And look at large sample of pro web sites and you will see that image theft is not a deterrent to showing their work, or even showing large images. Yes, image theft sucks. But if your images are so desirable that image theft is a problem, then you are probably doing OK.

[Greg Miller]

What specifically is wrong in that article? Each of the image protection demos they posted appear to work as described in the article.

CTRL + PrtScn on a PC defeats pretty much everything described on that page. Hit Ctrl + PrtSCN and paste the screen grab into the image editor of your choice.

[DrTang]

eh..let 'um steal my stuff

at least someone is looking at it

[fishbulb]

The author chose real examples that work if one ignores the easy work-arounds.


I too agree with Jac...
That the 'cited' Article: http://www.patrick-wied.at/blog/image-protection-on-the-web

... Is just total #^_9$•\∞%-§/7¢¶#.


CTRL + PrtScn on a PC defeats pretty much everything described on that page. Hit Ctrl + PrtSCN and paste the screen grab into the image editor of your choice.

Jac, Tim, and Greg - I guess either the article isn't clear, or I am not being clear...

After each example of image copy protection, the author states how the proposed method of copy protection can be defeated (except for the interlacing method, which I said in my post could be defeated by capturing the image twice and using photoshop to merge them).

I apologize for the confusion, but please understand that I am under no delusion that there is some form of image copy protection that works.

[invisibleflash]

There is no security possible. If the image can be seen on a screen, it can be copied.


How do you do that?

I see many images I'd like and they disable downloading. They are not worth buying, but they are enjoyable to see once in a while.

[Jac@stafford.net]

How do you do that?

For a PC see the post just above or click here (www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?119113-Ok!-Setting-up-a-web-site-What-to-do-about-image-security&p=1204207&viewfull=1#post1204207).

On a Mac use Command Shift 4 then frame the image with the cross-hair shown.
or use Grab found in the utilities folder inside the Applications folder
or Command Shift 3 to copy the whole screen
or if you use Photoshop get ScreenShot PSD from the App store (free)

For the iPhone or iPad - press the sleep/wake/shutdown button, then the Home button. The screen will flash and the screen image will be found in the Photos page.

I won't mention other platforms because I don't use them. Google is your friend.
.

[invisibleflash]

Yours is the sensible answer.

I was being a bit presumptuous - suggesting that you have finally "arrived" when a Google search for your name on the "Images" tab... actually pulls up relevant photos.

Try it with "Sebastio Salgado" and you'll see what I mean. At least a couple pages of your good stuff should come up first.





"Looking at photographs, like taking them, can be joyful, sensuous pleasure. Looking at photographs of quality can only increase that pleasure." Pete Turner

That is how it is. Google gives good results first, useless later. Although I only have a third of a page of pix associated with a Google of me. I'm not worried about people using my pix. They can be traced back to be if someone wants to know who shot it with a Google image search.

They got some nice pix on the Wiki for free. High res stuff too. 24 million pix for free. Millions more on Tumblr.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/2011-08-02_15-07-48_Switzerland_Diavolezza_11vl.jpg/1024px-2011-08-02_15-07-48_Switzerland_Diavolezza_11vl.jpg

Most photos are not worth much. I would not be worried about thieves. I'm happy when people use my pix. Of course, this is a personal thing. Some photogs are very stingy with crap pix. Others like myself just let them rip and let others enjoy them. (Although I shoot doc work and few want them as wall hangers.)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Juggalos_no._4_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1280px-Juggalos_no._4_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no._36_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1024px-Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no._36_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/The_Plane_Worshipers_vers_1_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/780px-The_Plane_Worshipers_vers_1_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Cornered_Copyright_1973_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg/489px-Cornered_Copyright_1973_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Pole_Dance_Selfie_%40_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/490px-Pole_Dance_Selfie_%40_Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Makes_Me_Grateful_for_My_Bed_Copyright_1972_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg/800px-Makes_Me_Grateful_for_My_Bed_Copyright_1972_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_mr.jpg

nsfw

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Homage_to_Weegee_2012_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1280px-Homage_to_Weegee_2012_Copyright_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Man_with_Cock_Ring_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/561px-Man_with_Cock_Ring_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg


The thing that make a pix valuable is the sig line. Without sig the price can drop very low. Now you have to have a collectable name to sign to boot.

Look at this. All original artwork from one of the rarest and most desirable underground comix.

http://www.amazon.com/Trucker-Fags-Denial-Entire-Book/dp/B008PTHAVU/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1420578645&sr=8-5&keywords=trucker+fags

$3000. 28 pages of original artwork of the highest order...and you guys value your $1.50 inkjets like they are gold don't you? You want to be the next half million dollar tricycle pix don't you.

You don't understand do you. The art world picks out a few lucky photogs to bestow riches on so they can dangle the carrot in your face to keep you going. But when push comes to shove...the world is polluted with pix for the most part they are near worthless. If your after $, become an actor or actress. It is infinity easier to become a world famous and rich actor or actress than it is to become a world famous and rich photog.

My advice OP...don't be stingy, offer low res images of your work. If someone wants a signed print sell it if your money motivated.

You guys want to know how to make your pix show up on Google with your name...email me.

"A photograph that has not been shared or at least printed is almost an unexistent photograph, is almost an untaken picture." Sergio Garibay

[Greg Miller]

(except for the interlacing method, which I said in my post could be defeated by capturing the image twice and using photoshop to merge them).

That's way too much work. CTRL + PrtScn on a PC is much easier - no merging necessary.

[tgtaylor]

I got it - it's simple! Just place a self-destruct program in one or two of the pixels and when they install the screen-shot on their machine the program opens up and erases the image.

Thomas

[Jac@stafford.net]

I got it - it's simple! Just place a self-destruct program in one or two of the pixels and when they install the screen-shot on their machine the program opens up and erases the image.

Thomas

Show us the code!
.

[tgtaylor]

That will cost you bucks....BIG bucks!

[jp]

I've even got a workaround if they ever block doing screen shots, by VNCing to a computer with the image on the screen and doing a screenshot from my computer instead.