Protecting photographs online?

johngalway

Hi folks,

I take some photographs when hunting, then write about the hunt and put both the story and photo online on various websites. Recently I discovered one of my photographs has been used in an online publication. I don't remember having been asked if the publication could use it or not, and I haven't contacted them directly about it.

Not looking to make a fuss over that photo. But, for the future what can I do to protect my photos that I put online? I have removed pretty much all of my PhotoBucket photos now. Any new photos I take I am running them through a free online Watermarking programme, reducing the size to 800x600 and not putting the originals online.

I don't like having to do that, but I don't much like my photos possibly being used without my permission, knowledge, or credit going to me in the future either. I find it both cheeky and plain out rude.

Another thing I don't know is do any of the photos I've put online have protection or not anyway?

Aside from the steps I'm now taking, outlined above, is there anything else I can do with or add to the photo to, well, have people ask instead of just pinching?

Thanks for your time.

ATB,

John

jpb1974

A big watermark right across the centre of the image is about as good as it gets... after that you might as well forget about the possibility of your images never being pinched.

melekalikimaka

do the opposite, put up high quality versions, free of watermarks, then use that software that scans the web for your images... find somewhere...issue invoice

cha-ching

AnCatDubh

jpb1974 wrote: »

A big watermark right across the centre of the image is about as good as it gets....

Agreed, but they will look like sh*t so it may be a case of questioning why bother put them up in the first place.

The aesthetically ok watermarks tend to be a little better than useless as they are normally easily cropped out or cloned where they've been placed (the placement being that which is making them aesthetically ok).

That said, such watermarks may convey a clear message to an image thief that these images are copyrighted (which incidently they are already protected in law without such a notice). That might just make an ordinary decent human being stop and think before they steal such an image.

I think where your watermark is overbearing you will find a loss of traffic to your web site - people generally don't want to look at images with a gaudy representation of the photographers name scrawled across every image.

You appear to be doing all that is available to you. But even an 800x600 resolution image can yield an ok print certainly at 6x4 or even 5x7 and depending on expectations larger again. It won't be within an ass's roar of being perfect and the loss of this control is in itself a large source of concern for you as a photographer - "who took the image", "mr photo did", "why does it look all pixelated, they must be f**king useless",

There's no absolute answer. If you throw them into a flash file, someone will extract them or screen grab them, and the flash will annoy the hell out of many others. If you do a web browser hack and disable the right click, people so inclined will just go to the code and take out the images directly without the browser hack preventing them.

Try using tineye periodically to check on your images - tedious but worth an occasional check - or a suspicious check (if your web server logs show unusually high access rates for a particular image/set of images).

Unfortunately on this great interweb, there is always the possibility for persons unknown to abuse your legitimate rights to your creative works. You may never know. The only trusted solution is put them in a box under your bed and never take them out. Catch 22. Bummer.

Corkbah

I currently have some people working on a solution for this and as a photographer I understand how annoying it is.

I do not upload images online because I find it unsafe as someone can easily rob it.

At the moment there are a number of issues which the development team have come back to me with, hopefully in the next 6-12months the whole issue will be solved (I don't have the money to pay for it outright so the process is slow)

Zillah

johngalway wrote: »

Hi folks,

I take some photographs when hunting, then write about the hunt and put both the story and photo online on various websites. Recently I discovered one of my photographs has been used in an online publication. I don't remember having been asked if the publication could use it or not, and I haven't contacted them directly about it.

Not looking to make a fuss over that photo. But, for the future what can I do to protect my photos that I put online? I have removed pretty much all of my PhotoBucket photos now. Any new photos I take I am running them through a free online Watermarking programme, reducing the size to 800x600 and not putting the originals online.

I don't like having to do that, but I don't much like my photos possibly being used without my permission, knowledge, or credit going to me in the future either. I find it both cheeky and plain out rude.

Another thing I don't know is do any of the photos I've put online have protection or not anyway?

Aside from the steps I'm now taking, outlined above, is there anything else I can do with or add to the photo to, well, have people ask instead of just pinching?

Thanks for your time.

ATB,

John

Mele has it: Send them an invoice for using your photo.

Corkbah wrote: »

I currently have some people working on a solution for this and as a photographer I understand how annoying it is.

No offense but this sounds a little made up. What people do you have "working on it" and what could they possibly do?

Kenny Logins

You could spend months devising a method to prevent your images being pinched but some kid will probably find a way around it in seconds.

johngalway

jpb1974 wrote: »

A big watermark right across the centre of the image is about as good as it gets... after that you might as well forget about the possibility of your images never being pinched.

Yeah, I figured as much. At the moment I think I'll stick to watermarking slap bang across the middle of the photo.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do the opposite, put up high quality versions, free of watermarks, then use that software that scans the web for your images... find somewhere...issue invoice

cha-ching

Now, this is interesting, and not something I'd considered! Can you tell me the name of the software that does this?

---

I had another look at the publication and found it's actually in it twice, part of the contents listings and as a header photo for a multi-page article.

So.... What is a photo worth?

Thanks for all the replies This has been very informative! You've all been very helpful

ATB,

John

johngalway

By the by. The publication did ask me last year, or the year before, if they could use both my stories and photos. But, I had other intentions for them at that time and I declined the offer a number of times.

I don't remember if I was asked since specifically about the photos, but I don't believe I was as I'd have likely kept an eye out. Just saw it by chance the last day.

Nforce

johngalway wrote: »

Yeah, I figured as much. At the moment I think I'll stick to watermarking slap bang across the middle of the photo.



Now, this is interesting, and not something I'd considered! Can you tell me the name of the software that does this?

---

I had another look at the publication and found it's actually in it twice, part of the contents listings and as a header photo for a multi-page article.

So.... What is a photo worth?

Thanks for all the replies This has been very informative! You've all been very helpful

ATB,

John

Probably this.. http://www.tineye.com/plugin

johngalway

Whoops, my bad, that was mentioned alright

mdebets

Corkbah wrote: »

I currently have some people working on a solution for this and as a photographer I understand how annoying it is.

I do not upload images online because I find it unsafe as someone can easily rob it.

At the moment there are a number of issues which the development team have come back to me with, hopefully in the next 6-12months the whole issue will be solved (I don't have the money to pay for it outright so the process is slow)

They could work full-time on the problem for 6-12 years and they won't be able to solve the problem. As soon as your picture is displayed on someone's computer, he can copy it (cache, screen shoot, take a photo of the screen, etc.) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

mdebets

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do the opposite, put up high quality versions, free of watermarks, then use that software that scans the web for your images... find somewhere...issue invoice

cha-ching

You can only do this for online publications. You won't find pictures printed in magazines, books, newspapers.

Even if you find your pictures being used online, it might not be worth it, if they just refuse to pay.
Are you prepared to take a website to court in another European country, in the US or somewhere in Asia?

melekalikimaka

book publications usually are alot more careful

Corkbah

mdebets wrote: »

They could work full-time on the problem for 6-12 years and they won't be able to solve the problem. As soon as your picture is displayed on someone's computer, he can copy it (cache, screen shoot, take a photo of the screen, etc.) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

For the doubters who want more details.

essentially when the images are to be displayed they are encrypted so any images lifted (drag/drop) are impossible to do, the lads are currently creating an algorythm which will do an electronic version of what I can best describe as something which was used (limited usage) in the 80's/90's to stop people photocopying copyrighted material
- essentially when the photocopier light passed over the page a hidden text appeared which meant that the photocopied page was redundant - working on methods of embedding images so that when screengrabs or printscreens are done the person will not be able to get the image - also considering a similar method to stop someone taking a photo of the screen.

A seperate programme is also in negotiations to be built for those who dont want to upload to the site I'm having created.....this is one of the things being under consideration at the moment.
Tracking dots are also one of the concepts considered - random images embedded in an image when its uploaded which will emit a signal when uploaded so all images can be tracked and will stop online robbery of images.

In theory great - in practice expensive to create and could require a lot of time.

stcstc

you mean something like this?

http://www.alpvision.com/watermarking.html

there are lots of digital watermarking systems available and not one of them is perfect by any means

Corkbah

similar to that but different.

with the cryptograph image if someone does a print screen they can get a copy of the image - the programme thats being worked on will hopefully stop that.

using cryptograph technology doesn't stop someone dragging and dropping an image - it helps find and prove its copyright of the rightful owner, but the method in development stops someone from dragging and dropping (or right click and "save as")

I have been researching the many ways in which images have been stolen and used and trying to figure out how to prevent/stop people from doing this.

DaireQuinlan

Corkbah wrote: »

For the doubters who want more details.

essentially when the images are to be displayed they are encrypted so any images lifted (drag/drop) are impossible to do, the lads are currently creating an algorythm which will do an electronic version of what I can best describe as something which was used (limited usage) in the 80's/90's to stop people photocopying copyrighted material
- essentially when the photocopier light passed over the page a hidden text appeared which meant that the photocopied page was redundant - working on methods of embedding images so that when screengrabs or printscreens are done the person will not be able to get the image - also considering a similar method to stop someone taking a photo of the screen.

A seperate programme is also in negotiations to be built for those who dont want to upload to the site I'm having created.....this is one of the things being under consideration at the moment.
Tracking dots are also one of the concepts considered - random images embedded in an image when its uploaded which will emit a signal when uploaded so all images can be tracked and will stop online robbery of images.

In theory great - in practice expensive to create and could require a lot of time.

There are a couple of ideas here, the most straightforward one seems to be some sort of steganography, hiding the watermark in the image somehow so that it can be retrieved to prove ownership. This is in theory quite simple, in practice quite difficult, and is probably an area sown with IP landmines and patent protections.

The other ideas seem to be pretty far fetched, and all seem to be predicated on you having control over the environment on the client machine which is displaying the images. This probably isn't going to wash. Massive hardware companies have spent billions of dollars in concert with the big OS vendors to try and lock down machines to prevent people from copying content on said machines. So far it's been a complete fail.

You have the classic dilemma that if your system isn't widespread then no-one will use it, and if it IS widespread then there'll be some impetus behind creating tools to bypass it, tools that take considerable expertise to write but which can be used by morons

So, good luck with that, but I fear your development team might have bitten off more than they can chew. But if you get some usable, licensable technologies out of it it's a win.

Zillah

Corkbah wrote: »

random images embedded in an image when its uploaded which will emit a signal when uploaded so all images can be tracked and will stop online robbery of images.

You sound a bit like my grandfather after he's watched an episode of CSI.

If you think "random images embedded in an image" can "emit a signal" on the internet then you don't really seem to understand images, the internet, or how it functions.

I really hope you're not paying these people, because either they're promising things they can't deliver, or you're taking flights of fancy.

Corkbah

Zillah and Daire

I understand your opinions and yes it is a long and labourous process.

as a photographer I understand how some/most images are stolen - the concept is that the images are uploaded to a site (hosting site) - and embedded with encryption to protect them (apologies if I said random images - I was thinking coding inserted in an image) - and if its eventually possible a file embedded to monitor/track based on IP address of hosting - so if the image is not at the right IP address then it will not be displayed which renders the image unuseable.

Here's hoping it will be possible - like I mentioned earlier this is currently being developed - it has been a work in progress for over 5 years.

I do hope that it is successful but as you said Daire - if it is successful it is more of a challenge to attack/beat it.

Kenny Logins

I bet I can bypass it. :pac:

Kenny Logins

Just remembered, there is a coded pattern embedded in the images on bank notes that prevents not only photocopying but also editing in Photoshop, if you could replicate this pattern on a watermarked image it might work.

Although other image editors ignore this pattern...

EDIT: Here it is, the EURion constellation

DaireQuinlan

Corkbah wrote: »

Zillah and Daire

I understand your opinions and yes it is a long and labourous process.

as a photographer I understand how some/most images are stolen - the concept is that the images are uploaded to a site (hosting site) - and embedded with encryption to protect them (apologies if I said random images - I was thinking coding inserted in an image) - and if its eventually possible a file embedded to monitor/track based on IP address of hosting - so if the image is not at the right IP address then it will not be displayed which renders the image unuseable.

Here's hoping it will be possible - like I mentioned earlier this is currently being developed - it has been a work in progress for over 5 years.

I do hope that it is successful but as you said Daire - if it is successful it is more of a challenge to attack/beat it.

Hmm. I work with these technologies every day. Short, as I've said above, of having complete control over the client environment, I really can't think of a way to implement the above in a secure and not easily bypass-able manner, the internet just doesn't really work that way. That said, if I was a nifty original thinker I wouldn't still be workin' for the man after all these years ...

DaireQuinlan

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Just remembered, there is a coded pattern embedded in the images on bank notes that prevents not only photocopying but also editing in Photoshop, if you could replicate this pattern on a watermarked image it might work.

Although other image editors ignore this pattern...

That's kinda the point though, you need complete buy-in every step of the chain to actually make something like this work. Todays hardware/software ecosystem is pretty open, which makes something like the above impossible to enforce, and relatively easy to get around. The nightmare scenario, and one which is being pushed increasingly hard, and swallowed by the dazzle-eyed masses, is the one in which a small bunch of companies absolutely control what software is allowed to be placed on your device. Any unauthorized software or hardware modifications to your device render it unuseable. Anyone who has an iPhone or iPad should start finding this familiar (and not a little worrying). It's not quite there yet, but it's getting there.

sineadw

Or we could all go the route of france and make tracking software a legal requirement.

...

...

Kenny Logins

I agree, I can't see there ever being any watertight method of preventing the theft of images. The music and film industry spends millions to combat piracy but have barely put a dent in the volume of pirated files that are shared daily.
I have to ask who these methods of image theft are aimed to block, ordinary punters looking for a nice desktop image? Bloggers? Photo/frame shops? Who would do the most damage?

I think the copyright notice > watermark > tinyeye > invoice approach is the best option we have right now, and maybe along with another means (non intrusive for genuine viewers) to make it difficult or awkward to right-click such as a transparent PNG overlay will help, but I certainly wouldn't spend years at something that will probably be circumvented in seconds.

Zillah

Corkbah wrote: »

I understand your opinions and yes it is a long and labourous process.

This had nothing to do with hard work, what you are proposing simply doesn't make any sense. Unless you have the power to completely remake how the internet and home computing operates you cannot implement what you are proposing.

The only feasible system would be an automated tineye-like system that constantly scans publicly available images for matches in a database, you can't protect an image by embedding something in it or encrypting it in some way; the information content of the image has to reach the end user eventually, and then the devious fellow can do anything he likes with it, including copying it.

mdebets

I'm just wondering, don't people never learn from history.

All this copy protection has been done to death by the Software, Music and Film industry. And they each had more money to throw at the problem than any photo related company ever could.
Did it work? No.

The only way, how you can make 100% sure that your photos won't be stolen, is to not put them on the internet.

Money spend on trying to develop a solution to protect photos online is money wasted.
People who want to copy them, will still be able to copy them, people who would be willing to pay might not take such a photo, due to its inconvenience.

The money would be better spend, to try and develop a system, that ensures that photographers are paid a proper amount and that buyers see a benefit in buying rather than stealing a photo.

clintondaly

You can search for copies of your images by using google images also

tricky D

As Zillah alludes to (I think), how are you going to get around the permissions issue. If you somehow 'diddle' the file to executable then a huge number of new issues arises.

Kenny Logins

Zillah wrote: »

The only feasible system would be an automated tineye-like system that constantly scans publicly available images for matches in a database, you can't protect an image by embedding something in it or encrypting it in some way; the information content of the image has to reach the end user eventually, and then the devious fellow can do anything he likes with it, including copying it.

If I had the resources and motivation this is what I'd concentrate on. I've seen a few cases of stolen images discovered by this means over the last year or so, and I think all were resolved.

johngalway

I made a decision to send the online publication a bill for using my image, twice. They have responded by saying the article was sent into them in good faith by someone who isn't employed by them. They are basically saying they owe me nothing for using my image, twice, in their publication. Where can I seek further advice as to my rights on this?

tricky D

Have a search through this forum using something like 'invoice' as the search term and you should find some good advice.

I think PCPhoto might have some connections which could help, so keep an eye on what he says.

AnCatDubh

johngalway wrote: »

I made a decision to send the online publication a bill for using my image, twice. They have responded by saying the article was sent into them in good faith by someone who isn't employed by them. They are basically saying they owe me nothing for using my image, twice, in their publication. Where can I seek further advice as to my rights on this?

They haven't a legal leg to stand on. If it were Getty images, they'd have their solicitors all over them already. There would be no question about it and they'd take no prisoners.

Essentially, if they published something - they are responsible for what they publish. There is no get out of jail card to be played with ignorance as their excuse.

The legal route may be the only option for you here if they are digging their heels in.

xshayx

Having similar problem with a Dublin hotel, although they are ignoring all contact made. Is the time/cost of a solicitor worth it in the end?

PCPhoto

its always worth getting a solicitor if you are willing to persue the matter all the way.

it does take time, but..... if you are legally entitled to get paid - if someone has illegally used your image without your permission then I say go for it....you may have to pay for the solicitors letter (but in your demand for payment you should include legal fee's - lets face it they had the opportunity to pay you and forced you to goto a solicitor so....they have no complaint)

the main problem is that people are often put off by costs - yes a solicitors letter will cost €150-250ish .... but this will make the person/company wake up and will explain to them that if they dont deal with the matter ASAP costs will get higher ...and higher.

you should invoice them with a final demand notice - stating that failure to pay within 7-10-15-21 days will result in the matter being passed to a debt collector or solicitor - if you pass the debt to a debt collector it could affect their credit rating....using a debt collection agency will result in loosing a percentage of the debt, using a solicitor will result in paying money up front ...but should result in getting all payments/costs.

johngalway

The publication has put forward a solution, to which I've added my own amendments, I think we're close to a solution of the issue which will credit me as the owner of the photo.

I'm happy enough with that.

As for the question of would it be worth it to go the whole way. Well, if I got professional advice telling me I was in the right and could tack on legal fees to the original bill, and had the publication continued on the road they were on, then yeah I'd have gone down that road.

However, I'm happy that a solution has been put forward that is acceptable to both parties without having to go down that road.

Thank you all for your advice, it's been both helpful and very, very informative

PCPhoto

so ... you are allowing them to get away without punishment by simply allowing them to give you "credit".

A "credit" should be a minimum, it was your image in the first place of course they should credit you - they should also pay you for your image and because they used it illegally they should pay the fee you decide (within reason).

if you are happy with the terms you have agreed so be it - but remember that for the future - a picture credit does not buy you anything - if someone wants to use your work - they should pay.

pixbyjohn

PCPhoto wrote: »

so ... you are allowing them to get away without punishment by simply allowing them to give you "credit".

Awwwww stoppppppppppppppppp.

PCPhoto

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Awwwww stoppppppppppppppppp.

so do you think that when a publication is caught breaching copyright law that they should be allowed to give a credit and everything should be hunky dorey ?

Dont get me wrong - if a publication asks for an image its the photographers choice whether they give it for free or not ...but if a publication take or use an image without permission I don't think they should be allowed to simply offer a credit in return.

if a photographer goes to the trouble of spending hundreds/thousands ..or tens of thousands of euro on equipment/training/software and then displays an image they are proud of online and someone takes one of the images and uses it for their own pleasure/profit - I dont think that an apology or promise of credit should suffice...do you ?

pixbyjohn

I agree with you but there is far too much debate on here about it. Its wrong to steal... full stop, but you and I debating it here won't stop robbery. Move on, otherwise it will eat you up. I think there are a lot of photographers online bickering on about this and it is so useless.

smash

It would be handy if you could upload a png file to your flickr account and it would add it as a watermark to all your images.

PCPhoto

some people still steal watermarked images.

johngalway

PCPhoto wrote: »

so ... you are allowing them to get away without punishment by simply allowing them to give you "credit".

A "credit" should be a minimum, it was your image in the first place of course they should credit you - they should also pay you for your image and because they used it illegally they should pay the fee you decide (within reason).

if you are happy with the terms you have agreed so be it - but remember that for the future - a picture credit does not buy you anything - if someone wants to use your work - they should pay.

I do understand where you're coming from and I have to say a couple of other people weren't happy with my decision either.

What was important to me was the photo was used without my permission, yes, stolen would be a fair description in my eyes.

So what to do next. It can't be unstolen. Had the publication continued on in the vein of their initial communications to me then I would have sent them a solicitors letter already.

The bill was my leverage into them admitting they'd done something wrong. I've got that admission, I've gotten an apology and I will have all of that made public by them as well as something else connected with the use of the photo.

"If" they learn a lesson from all of this to check their sources, to check their images, and to better understand the rights of other people, then I'd consider that worth doing. If not, then I've been a dumbass, but hey-ho if you don't try, you'll never know. It can of course be validly said a monetary penalty incurred on them would have impressed that lesson more forcefully.

The_Snapper

PCPhoto wrote: »

so ... you are allowing them to get away without punishment by simply allowing them to give you "credit".

A "credit" should be a minimum, it was your image in the first place of course they should credit you - they should also pay you for your image and because they used it illegally they should pay the fee you decide (within reason).

if you are happy with the terms you have agreed so be it - but remember that for the future - a picture credit does not buy you anything - if someone wants to use your work - they should pay.

100% agree.

@ OP, you are obviously not trying to earn a living as a full time photographer to appreciate why these companies cannot just browse the internet & steal images for their commercial gain.

They have saved money on hiring a photographer by stealing the image and have probably gained by using it. A byline/credit is no good to you unless you are intending to promote your photography business & payment would be included in the deal.

Companies/Businesses must realise, if they unlawfully take an image, then it must be paid for or face the consequences.

I am a full time Press/PR photographer (Freelance).

For example. Would you be happy if I went on your land and stole a yearling and then threw a networking party at my house offering all kinds of lamb cuts as the main course, but it's OK because I put a sign up next to the BBQ crediting your excellent work & efforts as a sheep farmer?

Bear in mind also, I'm completely ignoring the hard labour & cost it took to bring that lamb to yearling stage.

AnCatDubh

PCPhoto wrote: »

some people still steal watermarked images.

meh.... they obviously have no taste

DaireQuinlan

The_Snapper wrote: »

For example. Would you be happy if I went on your land and stole a yearling and then threw a networking party at my house offering all kinds of lamb cuts as the main course, but it's OK because I put a sign up next to the BBQ crediting your excellent work & efforts as a sheep farmer?

That's a pretty crummy comparison. It'd be more accurate (if a little laboured) to compare it to me cloning your lamb by taking a DNA sample available to me because you leave your lamb out in public all the time, and then having a BBQ with that cloned lamb. You still have the use of your lamb to do with as you will.

The_Snapper

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's a pretty crummy comparison.

It has the same principles. :rolleyes:

Zillah

The_Snapper wrote: »

It has the same principles. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't. Violating copyright lacks the core issue involved in theft: Denying the owner continued use of their property.

tricky D

Have to agree with PCPhoto's and The Snapper's opinion. They've stolen your intellectual property, admitted it, played stupid and kind of played the poor mouth. Most publishers know perfectly well about copyright and licencing requirements but are profiting because too many copyright holders are letting them away with it, especially online in cases exactly like this. Not only have you been robbed but you've let them away with it and they know it. As a result, you are now well over a hundred quid down and they are the opposite.

Scruffles

in one way,they are making a very strong compliment by saying the photos are perfect enough to be used,but in another...its theft and laziness.
if they hadnt even had the decency to write who had taken them then they are completely unprofesional and have the morals of dandruff.

sometimes there is a way at getting back at people who do this but there is a strict criteria as to whether it will work or not.
if they also were directly linking [hotlinking] to the image then depending on the host there may be a way at getting back.
-it needs to work so that the image can be deleted and another one uploaded under the same name-which becomes the one that appears on their site.
the new image can be anything from 'THIS IMAGE IS STOLEN FROM PHOTOGRAPHER XXX AT [website] / [email]' .....to something very rude.

used to pay for a server partition a few years ago and had been looking through the logs to find people were hotlinking the best work had ever produced at that time.
so had just replaced the image on the server to a square of the same size but blank,very bright girly colours and advertised the website on there,got free advertising out of it but this worked a treat-they had never worked so quick in removing it.
-have done the whole legal threat thing before and found it does not work-again due to the server logs had found out people were using the server as THEIR OWN to host their signature images as there was a flaw in phpBB at the time which gave write access to anyone.
the server was stickied and being publicaly advertised on a official forum of a international music band so its forum users coud take advantage-the band has got serious amounts of money and instead they chose to rip off a disabled kids webspace with limited bandwith.
they tried to say it wasnt anything to do with them it was the users fault but the band who were also part time staff had stickied it.
the legal threat from profesional mates of mine didnt do anything but they listened when loads of those users signature images suddenly changed to rude and fluoro.[/email]