# Protecting your online images



## Dennis Bloodnok (Jul 11, 2016)

Not sure if this is the right forum to post this question, but I'd be interested to hear what tools you all use to identify and help protect against plagiarism. I use a service called Plaghunter, which is effectively a glorified database and scheduled google image search, but it does the job reasonably well. However, does anyone else have any preferred solutions?

For clarification, I am well aware that if you present an image on screen, it can be stolen. What I'm opening for discussion is different methods you may have for finding out when one of your images is being used online elsewhere without your permission, and for resolving that problem once the guilty site has been spotted.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 11, 2016)

Moved to 'Discussions' for better exposure and because 'Websites' is mainly intended for review and discussion of your own website.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 11, 2016)

Simple, Don't post them online.  Then there is nothing to resolve.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 11, 2016)

Very simply, I don't put anything on the internet that I care about.  I've never bothered to see how many copies are floating around because I really don't care.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 11, 2016)

I am a mod at a royalty free image site.  One of the things I do is approve images that are submitted.

The help weed out potential spammers and whatnot, I run Tin Eye and Google searches for some of the images to see if they are submitted elsewhere.  Though not a fool-proof method in that scenario, it does help determine if an image belongs to the poster.

I will periodically do the same with my images, especially those with large download numbers.  Granted, I am pretty much allowing anyone to use in a non-stand alone manner, it does give me an idea where my photos are being used, and which are more popular.

That said, any of them that I want to keep from being stolen aren't allowed to play near the airwaves.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 11, 2016)

What's the best way to keep from having your car stolen?  Don't own one.
What's the best way to keep from having your images stolen by on-line thieves?  Don't upload them.


----------



## Dennis Bloodnok (Jul 12, 2016)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to get some kind of cast iron guarantee that no-one will ever lift one of my images. A part of why I do what I do is so I can get feedback and hopefully improve, and I can't get that unless I make my photos publicly available, so I accept that a certain amount of plagiarism is inevitable (unless the photo in question just ain't good enough, of course).

In order to mitigate it, though, I take several precautions I feel are reasonable. Firstly, photos from my web site are only downloadable at the resolution they appear on the web page. I feel that makes them useless for off-line use like printing. Secondly, the good old (easily foiled) technical tricks like intercepting web page right clicks at least makes it obvious to people that I'm paying attention to ownership. Thirdly, the issue I mentioned in my original post - some form of searching over the web for similar images so that, if I find one of my pictures being used without my permission, I can send a cease and desist communication and/or request some form of payment.

So my question is more "how do you mitigate the risk given you've already decided to post an image online" rather than "how do I ensure no-one rips my work off".

@snowbear, I've looked at TinEye, but not had a great deal of luck with it. I'd be interested to hear how good you find it, and if you looked at anything else as an alternative.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 12, 2016)

If someone can write a program preventing an image from being taken from the net, someone else can write the opposite program


----------



## snowbear (Jul 12, 2016)

I think Tin Eye works as well as other search tools.  I try searching with Tin Eye when I get a feeling that an image has been lifted.  If I don't get any hits, I'll search with Google.  I have tried SauceNAO and IQDB but they seem to be geared more toward Anime type images rather than photographs.  There is an extension. Image Search Options by SauceNAO,  that will search multiple engines simultaneously; it also allows you to specify which engines.

As far as trying to decrease the risk, I don't know if you really can; locks are meant to keep honest people out.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 12, 2016)

You will never be able to completely guarantee that no one will steal your images if you post them online.

However, you can mitigate the issue by posting very small images that are watermarked. This way they have little value to a thief.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 12, 2016)

Or you can develop a thick skin and don't give a rat's if/when an image is stolen.

I don't have the time to worry about theft.  I don't even take the time to watermark my images. (A watermark for me, is akin to laughing at your own jokes.) To be honest, since I derive zero income from my images ... How much actual harm can occur and how measureable is said harm?

Now if I had measurable income from my images ... That would be a different matter and I would do all that I can to protect my income, watermarks, passwords, right click disabled, et cetera.

I just think that spending a lot of time worrying about plagiarism, tracking down thieves and then engaging them in a letter writing campaign is paramount to a dog chasing its own tail. Very little return for alot of effort.

Besides, nobody would want my stuff anyway.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 12, 2016)

I'm not that paranoid.


----------



## Dennis Bloodnok (Jul 12, 2016)

I don't think it's binary - worry or not. I think it's more a matter of gauging how much it matters and how likely it is, then setting your level of safeguarding based on that. Sure, there are some cars you'd be happy to leave unlocked, and you'd obviously have a lot of security bells and whistles on a Rolls-Royce, but there are plenty of shades in between those two extremes.

I choose not to add a watermark simply because I think it spoils the picture for anyone kind enough to pop by and take a look at my stuff. Therefore, I'm already making considered compromises.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 12, 2016)

Watermarking I've never considered to be tremendously effective.  Some people do it, which is fine - for me, eh.. any watermark I can add that isn't slap in your face obvious is just to easy to remove with programs like photoshop.  So don't really see that as an effective tool myself.  Others swear by them, which is fine.  Guess it sort of depends on who you talk too.

Myself I don't bother protecting my images online, frankly if folks are desperate enough to steal my stuff then they probably need it more than I do.. lol.   I don't sell images or make my living that way, I shoot strictly for the enjoyment of shooting.  As such time taken to "protect" those images would be time wasted, for me at least.

Certainly other folks would have reason to want to protect their intellectual property, and I'm A-Ok with that.  Just not really something I feel the need for myself.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 12, 2016)

There are some really, really terrific photographers (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) who post better, bigger pictures than I do.

And, if someone uses a picture of mine, so what?

I try to worry about important things.


----------



## KmH (Jul 12, 2016)

Photo Attorney
Help! I’ve Been Infringed! |
What’s An Infringement Worth? |
Two Easy Steps for Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement | NPPA
Five Things You Can Do to Protect Your Online Images |
Registering Your Copyrights Using the eCO System | NatureScapes.Net – The Resource for Nature Photographers
http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Excuses-excuses.pdf
http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Excuses-excuses-videos.pdf
Fair Use Checklist | Columbia University Libraries
The Fuss About Fair Use |


----------



## KmH (Jul 12, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> There are some really, really terrific photographers (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) who post better, bigger pictures than I do.
> 
> And, if someone uses a picture of mine, so what?


Yep. photographs are now a commodity that has little value, like bushels of corn.
A bushel of corn (56 pounds of corn) is selling for about $3.50 a bushel or $0.065 per pound.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 12, 2016)

KmH said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > There are some really, really terrific photographers (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) who post better, bigger pictures than I do.
> ...


Oh you city boy Dreamer you....  Corn as of 5:00 p.m. today:  $2.72  New Crop $2.90.  I wish it was $3.50 considering we have corn in the ground this year along with sorghum and soybeans.   Crop prices really suck this year. Especially since we averaged 65 bushels an acre for wheat.  

Wheat






 Today 3.03   -1.20  





 New Crop 3.03   -1.20

Milo





 Today 2.47   -1.05  





 New Crop 2.65   -0.95  

Corn





 Today 2.72   -0.80  





 New Crop 2.90   -0.70  

Soybeans 





 Today 9.92   -0.95  





 New Crop 9.77   -1.10


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jul 12, 2016)

I watermark but mostly for branding, it's small in the bottom right hand corner. Photos get stolen all the time, I use Pixsy to go after the cases that matter. 99% of  my matches on there are people (mostly from the middle east and Asia) who steal my images, apply horrible filters, then post on twitter/instagram- it's annoying but mostly harmless. The few cases that matter, I submit a case and get paid for their theft. If you're running a photo business (at least one like mine) you need to post images online, theft (and seeking compensation for it) is just part of the game.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 13, 2016)

Just do what I do, just don't take good photos and nobody will want to steal them.

Problem solved.


----------



## john.margetts (Jul 13, 2016)

I sometimes think my system is too close to Unpopular's for comfort but when I do produce a commercially viable image, it goes nowhere near the Interweb.


----------



## fmw (Jul 26, 2016)

If I post it on the internet that means I don't care what people do with it.  I do care, it never sees the light of day on the internet.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 26, 2016)

I don't post much online. If/when I do, I watermark. It can be done in various ways so it's probably a matter of figuring out what works best to protect the photo while making it viewable (some people use more transparent watermarks, I adjust mine for a specific photo and change/adjust the color, etc.). Even if it doesn't always stop a photo being taken and used without your permission or knowledge, it might make it harder to use and be a less likely target.

Before using and posting photos on a website, look at the Terms & Conditions. Even if you don't read all of it, look to see if you're agreeing to allow the site to use your photos. Many photo sharing sites are referred to as 'photo rights grab' sites since that seems to be what the intent is, to take and use photos posted by site users.

I've gotten better feedback from an instructor from a class, or other photographers, than people describe getting on photo sharing websites. People on those seem to 'like' just about everything they see which doesn't necessarily seem like it would do all that much to help you learn or improve.

There's info. and resources on websites of pro photographers organizations like ASMP and PPA about copyright, usage, etc.

edit - And obviously it's up to the photographer how much to protect photos. I value my photography, because I've put effort and time and my ability into it, so I protect it the best that I can.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 30, 2016)

snowbear said:


> I am a mod at a royalty free image site.  One of the things I do is approve images that are submitted.
> 
> The help weed out potential spammers and whatnot, I run Tin Eye and Google searches for some of the images to see if they are submitted elsewhere.  Though not a fool-proof method in that scenario, it does help determine if an image belongs to the poster.
> 
> ...


What are your thoughts on the current Carol Highsmith vs Getty fiasco?


----------



## snowbear (Jul 30, 2016)

chuasam said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > I am a mod at a royalty free image site.  One of the things I do is approve images that are submitted.
> ...



I hope she wins enough to buy Getty and then cleans house.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 30, 2016)

I think some people are being a bit over the top to the original post.  The person starting the thread isn't looking for foolproof options, just trying to see if there are other ideas to consider to try and minimize this.

One thing I've sometimes done and I know others who do this...only post low quality images (i.e.: save the image so it's much smaller in size).  With a lot of websites, this doesn't reduce the viewing of the image much.  But it does mean that if someone steals it with the idea of printing it out as their own, they end up with a photo file that is 39kb or something that you really can't print and expect anything decent.


----------



## limr (Jul 31, 2016)

Given how many students' knuckles I've smacked (not literally, relax) over the issue of plagiarism, you'd think I would be hyper vigilant about preventing people from plagiarizing my own work that I post online. But I am not. If it's just a cell phone snap, I don't give a rat's ass. If it's something I'm more invested in, I'll size it down to make it difficult for use offline, and I make sure settings are "All rights reserved" on Flickr. I used to watermark the images I used on my blog, but I haven't written on my blog in a long time and haven't bothered to watermark anything I've uploaded here or Flickr or the other forum I post to. I suppose the most likely place anyone would get my images would be Facebook, but I don't post my "real" work there. I just think it's highly unlikely to happen so I just don't really worry about it.


----------



## Dikkie (Sep 20, 2016)

... should add some 18+ content in the watermark to prevent people stealing it.


----------

