Two more points - for what it's worth: Terms of Use - post them on your site. There are a number of good ones that you can tailor to your needs. Look at mine. http://whitemetal.com
Copyright Notice - put one on every page. I just have a standard page footer that goes on automatically. Go to the web site ISP that hosts the image that was stolen and locate their Terms of Service and Copyright clauses. They all tell how to pursue infractions. In every case I have encountered, the steps to file a complaint were exactly the same. In other words, once you have written the necessary documentation once, the only thing that changes is the image file name, the infringing user, and the renamed image (if applicable). In other words you need to invest some time in protecting your work so that when things happen, you are prepared to respond. ppro > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of T Rittenhouse > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: KMP Copyright Infringement(s) > > > > Unfortunately for them ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse. On the > other you are not going to be able to collect damages unless you can show > realistically that there is a money issue involved. If someone stole your > pic and used it for a national billboard campaign where they would normally > expect to pay a hundred thousand dollars for that use of the image. For > something like the Ebay sellers illegal use about all you could expect is a > cease and desist order. > > BTW Boz, since you notified him it is your image and it is still up the user > can not hardly claim ignorance can he? Notify Ebay immediately with a copy > of your e-mail communications to the seller. I will make a guess, he won't > be using Ebay again for awhile. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:15 AM > Subject: Re: KMP Copyright Infringement(s) > > > > Boz asked: > > > What can I do against this: > > > http://cgi.ebay.de/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1334153963 > > > > > > > > > I don't mean legally, but I would appreciate ideas on how to place the > > > copyright notices so that they are not so easy to remove. Am I dreaming > > > when thinking of images that do not allow themselves to be > > > screencaptured and edited? > > > > Short answer: yes, you're dreaming. Other people have given > > better advice than I can on legal and social approaches to the > > problem; my comments are on the technical side. > > > > There's no really good technical solution. There are techniques > > to make theft of the images a little more difficult (the "my car > > only has to be harder to steal than my neighbour's car, not > > invulnerable" approach). The harder you make it to steal the > > images, the more you interfere with legitimate viewing of them. > > So what you want, as with _any_ computer-security issue, is to > > find a useful and reasonable compromise between the cost (in > > money, effort, and inconvenience) and effectiveness of the > > security measures you choose. > > > > Putting copyright notices along the edges of an image does very > > little to distract from the image and does not reduce the > > quality of it. It's also easy to defeat by cropping the image. > > It _does_ mean that anyone who takes the image directly from > > your site can't claim ignorance of its copyright status, but all > > they have to do is claim that they stole it from someone else > > who'd already filed off the copyright notice (*and* claim to be > > ignorant of copyright law in general!). > > > > Putting an invisible digital watermark in the image allows you > > to prove that the image is yours as long as the thief doesn't > > know how to check for it and remove it, but does little to > > discourage an ignorant thief from using your work. > > > > Putting a visible but faint watermark across the whole image is > > harder to remove (I'm betting that someone with better Photoshop > > skills than I have can undo it -- *if* they decide that it's > > worth that much effort instead of finding someone else to rip > > off) but diminishes the usefulness of the image to legitimate > > users (i.e. viewers of your web site). The question becomes, > > "How *badly* do you feel that compromises the usefulness of your > > site?" If the answer is, "Well that's unfortunate but not a > > show-stopper", and theft of your work is a bigger deal than > > that, then there's your answer. > > > > Cleverly editing the copyright notice in place of the serial > > number is a lot more work on your end, and can be undone by > > anyone who knows Photoshop as well as you do. (Unless, of > > course, they decide it's easier to steal from someone else...) > > It does less to diminish the information-usefulness of the image > > than the visible watermark. > > > > (If most of the theft is for eBay listings, putting "Not For > > Sale!" in the watermark might also be a nice touch...) > > > > I suggest not trying Javascript code to stop folks from > > downloading images. First, for them to _see_ the image, it > > _has_ been transmitted to their computer; they just need to know > > a little more to be able to save it, but it's already in memory > > (and possibly on disk in the cache) on their system. If nothing > > else, a screen-capture program will get it. Second, such little > > gain is probably not worth the cost to legitimate users: anyone > > using a non-Javascript-capable browser or who turns off > > Javascript for performance or security reasons can no longer use > > your site. (FWIW, I'm in the latter category.) > > > > > > Those cover people copying your images. My recommendation is to > > go with a simple copyright notice and rely on social and legal > > measures to deal with theft as you discover it. > > > > > > Now as for people linking directly to your images instead of > > copying them, there are some tricks ... it comes down to a > > question of how much effort it's worth. Someone else suggested > > renaming images and replacing them with a blank image (or, what > > I'd be inclined to do, an image of a sign saying, "The picture > > that was supposed to be here was stolen from...", or maybe a > > photo of a camera that has been smashed to bits). Well that's > > an after-the-fact, _reactive_ approach (which is also true of > > legal solutions, notifying eBay of offenses, etc.). To do this > > proactively, you could perhaps use a server-side script which > > concocts a new filename each time the page is loaded (or one > > which changes based on the date/time), and configure the server > > so that any requests for an expired filename return the "this > > image was stolen" picture. It has to be server-side so that the > > actual filename of the permanent image is not exposed. > > > > If the big problem you run into is folks linking in to your > > images, this ought to discourage that (at the expense of more > > coding on your end, and more load on your web server (though if > > your pages are already coming out of a database, this probably > > isn't a huge increase percentagewise)). It doesn't stop them > > from _copying_ the images, of course, and I'm pretty sure I > > could come up with a chunk of Java or Javascript code to snarf > > the filename-of-the-moment on the fly once I teach myself either > > of those languages (the algorithm is forming in my head as I > > write). OTOH, writing Javascript to do that is harder than just > > copying the image and storing it elsewhere, so you probably > > don't have to worry about that particular hack. > > > > You might also be able to hack your server to serve up different > > images depending on the "Referrer" tag in the HTTP request from > > the browser. I'm not sure how easy that is to defeat, nor am I > > sure whether that would break for any legitimate viewers. > > > > > > There's your long answer. To recap: the short answer is that > > there are no really good _technical_ solutions, though there are > > techniques which may help a little. I really think that the > > main thrust of your anti-theft efforts, if you want to seriously > > protect your intellectual property, is going to have to hinge on > > writing letters after the fact. > > > > (Education in the form of a notice reminding people what > > copyright means may help, but only if you get them to actually > > read the notice.) > > > > As someone else pointed out, theft of your work is a result of > > your having put together something so incredibly useful / > > valuable. I'm not going to say, "You should be flattered." I'm > > going to say, "This is an unfortunate side effect of the great > > job you've done, and it's going to take more than technical > > approaches to deal with it." > > > > > > Good luck. > > > > -- Glenn > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
