Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Thwarting Image Theft: Fact or Fiction?

Rated 3.79 (Ratings: 12) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(25 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of Jeff Howden

Jeff Howden

Member info | Full bio

User since: December 13, 1998

Last login: June 22, 2011

Articles written: 21

Lots of people are going to want to pipe in with their opinions on this one, but in the end it'll all basically boil down to one succinct thought that goes something like this:

"If you don't want people copying your images off your site, don't put them online to begin with."

Unfortunately that's the only sure way to make sure they can't be copied.

Oh sure, you'll have people suggest all sorts of crazy ideas to protect images. In the end these ideas just make it more difficult for your innocent users to view your images, while at the same time making those that would steal them just a little more curious about all the loopholes — to the point of actually taking them just to see if they can. You'll get suggestions like:

  • "Cut the image up into a bunch of little pieces and then reassemble the whole thing in a table."
  • "Just add this no-right-click script to your page." I'll personally put a hit out on anyone that suggests that.
  • "Make the image a rollover so when they right-click they'll trigger the image to swap to something you don't mind them stealing."
  • "What about password protecting the image directory?" Never mind that the browser isn't going to know the password so it won't be able to load the images onto the page to begin with.
  • "Position a layer over the image so they can't right click on it."
  • "There's this nifty plug-in from Clever Content that makes it impossible to take the images. It even dissables the 'print screen' button." Yeah right, and you're system stability goes down the crapper, too. Not to mention most people aren't going to install the damn thing to begin with. In most cases the point of a website is to include the largest number of people with as few obstacles as possible. I'd say this plug-in goes against that full-steam.
  • And on and on and on and on...

However, these suggestions will either not work at all, will criminalize innocent users (the no-right-click script — ie, taking away functionality for the sake of the minority), will only work if javascript is enabled, will only work in v4 browsers, or only make it more work for you to do but no less work to take the images.

This all takes me back to that concise comment quoted above.

There are, however, some things to consider when putting images online that can reduce their attraction for thievery.

  • Images for the web are not suitable for printing due to a much lower dpi.
  • You can place a visible watermark on your image that would be difficult for most users to remove.
  • Allow the user to view thumbnails, but require registration for the full-blown size.
  • And more...

Just my 2¢,

.jeff

Jeff Howden (.jeff) is a web developer working for Vos & Howden, LLC in Portland, Oregon where he's partnered with long-time colleague, Anthony Vos. His skills include ColdFusion, JavaScript, CSS, XML, relational databases, and much, much more. His biggest professional accomplishments include, but are not limited to:

  • building a ColdFusion-based e-commerce solution for Mt. Bachelor that transacted over $1.62 million dollars in September 2001 with 0 (yes, that's zero) ColdFusion errors and then an almost completely rebuilt version transacted $2.86 million dollars in September 2002.
  • being asked to be a Technical Editor for the ColdFusion MX book, Inside ColdFusion MX from New Rider's Publishing company.
  • being asked by BrainBench to perform quality control on their JavaScript 1.5 certification test after receiving the highest beta test score out of 200 testees.
  • managing the server that hosts evolt.org and withstanding a slashdotting that brought over 1,000,000 hits to the site, over 10 gigs of data transfer, and an average in excess of 2300 unique visitor sessions per hour, all within a 24-hour period and the server never hiccuping once.

Submitted by mantruc on September 11, 2000 - 13:25.

what if you add a message at the bottome of each page, "you will recieve a 50v electric shock for every picture you copy from this site" ? i for one, am very concerned about this matter. i'd love to protect my pictures from being taken from my site, but it's just impossible, considering the internet was designed to *share* files... so the only way not to share them is not putting them online, or else, just try to forget about your rights to them. i believe the best approach to this problem is appealing to your audicence's honesty and maturity, as Phil Greenspum (photo.net) does, with a sign that says something like "you are allowed to copy and use these images as long as you don't earn money with them" and just cross your fingers. my $0.02

login or register to post comments

Submitted by aardvark on September 12, 2000 - 22:09.

Stolen ImageI know, I know. Why would someone include an image here, you ask. Well, I just want to demonstrate how simple it is to add some very basic copyright "protection" to an image. Trying to prevent people from stealing your images often makes you forget about those who do get hold of your images. How do you protect the ones that get stolen? This image could have come from anywhere, it could have been a screen capture from a page with JavaScript protection, or layer tricks. But it doesn't matter. The author's name and copyright notice is on the image. Yes, with enough time and skill it can be cloned out, or it can be cropped, losing much of the context of the image (but the copyright notice could have just been moved up). But is it worth it? Stealing the image is easy (yes, it is mine, but anyone could do this), but the time investment in removing the copyright probably isn't worth it. High-tech? No. Effective? Enough for me.

login or register to post comments

Clever Content

Submitted by skyguy500 on August 24, 2001 - 17:13.

The clever content plugin does not make it impossible to get the image. Since their plugin is a window object, I was able to take that window and place it in a vb form, scroll the form to where the image is now on the visible portion of the form. I was then able to do a screen capture and wala! I got the image. I have to agree with Jeff. There is no way possible to protect image theft online. Best defense is to watermark your pictures.

login or register to post comments

Submitted by Darpa on December 4, 2001 - 10:57.

Maybe you guys are right - nothing worth money should ever be put on the Internet. Music, books and art should just be distributed by big companies as physical media - Intellectual property is worthless - only big brands deserve to make money and people who NEED the Internet as a means of distribution are toast - that's what you guys want isn't it? After all if you can steal it then you've got the right to it - that what you guys believe isn't it? After all anyone can break into your apartment just as easily as skyguy500 can break the cc plug-in so why criminalize THEM Oh sure, you'll have people suggest all sorts of crazy ideas to protect appartments. In the end these ideas just make it more difficult for your innocent vistors, while at the same time making those that would steal them just a little more curious about all the loopholes — to the point of actually taking them just to see if they can.

login or register to post comments

Burglary???????????

Submitted by skyguy500 on December 4, 2001 - 13:15.

My goal here wasn't to see if it could be done. Alchamedia came to our company presenting this great software that protects images. However, the servers would cost $30,000 each. Our president was very willing to fork over the money for this technology. I created a utility within an hour to show our president that $30,000 was way overpriced for something that was not foolproof. Hopefully, this will catch the attention of others that are all too willing to dish out money on software that they take for face value. Artiscopes' CopySafe has a similar loophole. I've contacted both companies to let them know where their shortcomings are. I got no reply from Alchamedia and I was given the "Low Life of the Year" award from Artiscope. If I was really a low life I would have released my utility to the general public for everyone to use. Instead I sent both companies copies of the utility to assist them in closing up the holes. Let's keep things into perspective. Both Copy protection plugins are good enough to prevent the average person from stealing images, but those who are out stealing images are not your average person. They will do all that they can to get images if they want them badly enough. I want something out their that will prevent the extra-ordinary person from image theft. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Until that has been accomplished, I will never recommend any company to fork over thousands of dollars for a software package that can't live up to it's hype.

login or register to post comments

Re: Burglary

Submitted by Jeff Howden on December 4, 2001 - 19:09.

Darpa,

Maybe you guys are right - nothing worth money should ever be put on the Internet. Music, books and art should just be distributed by big companies as physical media - Intellectual property is worthless - only big brands deserve to make money and people who NEED the Internet as a means of distribution are toast - that's what you guys want isn't it? After all if you can steal it then you've got the right to it - that what you guys believe isn't it?

I don't think anybody is suggesting that it's ok to steal copyright material just because you can or that only big, corporate brands deserve to make the money. All we're trying to say is that if you put it online there's no way through technology to protect your intellectual property. This is true for the little guys and big guys alike. If you think about it, the same is true for print or recorded media. If it's out there people can and probably will copy and distribute that material.

What's the answer then? If you value your intellectual property, you must protect through legal channels -- filing for legal copyright & bringing any violators of that copyright into litigation.

.jeff

login or register to post comments

Great Marketing

Submitted by skyguy500 on December 5, 2001 - 11:13.

Alchemedia is now marketing their clever content under a new name "Mirage". Same technology, same holes. It's like Windows XP. New name, no improvements.

login or register to post comments

Submitted by Darpa on December 10, 2001 - 16:52.

What's the answer then? If you value your intellectual property, you must protect through legal channels -- filing for legal copyright & bringing any violators of that copyright into litigation. That's like saying that since anti-virus software can't anticipate every imaginable attack then we shouldn't use it at all and we should just depend on legal action against script kiddies. After all no technology can protect against every concievable virus or trojan attack. You are not even going to know who the violators are (unless you happen to own their OS and have it send you information ;o) ). Are you suggesting that small time musicians, filmakers and authors have to go after people who would have been their customers with lawyers? 10,000 law letters to fans worldwide telling them that they ripped off the artist 50 cents? You don't happen to be a lawyer by some chance?

login or register to post comments

Anti Virus Software.

Submitted by skyguy500 on December 10, 2001 - 16:59.

Anti virus software doesn't cost us $30,000 to protect ourselves, and there are laws that can take down the "script kiddies" when they are caught. I don't think anyone in this forum is telling you what to do to protect your property. These is just information for you to make your own decision. Hope you don't go broke!

login or register to post comments

Submitted by Darpa on December 10, 2001 - 17:05.

I see skyguy500's point - in that case its really a question of whether they were honest in what they said it could do and who you think is going to go after your content. If its graphic designers or magazine editors swapping it with colleagues and friends in the same business then it probably is effective (?). If it's profession pirates then the chances are there isn't much you can do. I'm guessing that you are saying there is nothing that you can really do with guys like that if your computer is still really a computer.

login or register to post comments

New option to protect images

Submitted by harris43 on January 2, 2002 - 16:58.

found this: www.servesafe.net Protects images with the same $30,000 software mentioned above, but is substantially cheaper! They even have free accounts. Looks like Clever Content has been renamed Mirage now because they do text protection too. Take a look at their demo on www.alchemedia.com

login or register to post comments

www.servesafe.net

Submitted by skyguy500 on January 2, 2002 - 18:56.

Looks like they are using Mirage and letting others serve images from their system for free. However, there is probably a space quota to where you'll have to buy extra space. And I'm sure you'll get charged for bandwidth as the traffic increases to your images. And with the utility that I made I was able to grab their "Demo" image within a few seconds. The sad thing about windows is that everything is a window object that has a handle. So the way mirage (Clever Content) works is so very easy to get around since they are using a nifty little trick called subclassing to intercept the windows messages going to that object. They did do some extra security with Mirage as far as detecting some of the new screen capture utilities like Hypersnap DX. That feature is also very easily thwarted by having the capture utility randomize it's name. I have programmed my utility to do so. This way their is no signature to locate in memory. (Am I giving away too many tricks here?) I can't stress enough that image theft will never be beaten. Watermarks are the best defense.

login or register to post comments

www.servesafe.net

Submitted by harris43 on January 3, 2002 - 11:11.

I was all on board with you until you mentioned that watermarking was the best defense. There are more people out there that can paint out or crop out a watermark than there are that can write a program like the one you've written. A watermark is only a statement, not a protective measure in my opinion. There was no space quota mentioned on their site but it did say they MAY in the future charge for bandwidth. They have a 1000 image account. I wonder if that's the limit, although it says you can ask about more.

login or register to post comments

CopySafe

Submitted by tabari3 on March 9, 2002 - 06:11.

I was cetain that I had found the perfect solution for protecting my web images until I stumbled upon this website. I was prepared to use CopySafe to protect my very rare photographs, but thanks to you, I now know that I cannot place them on the web without having fear that they can be ripped off; even with CopySafe or Alchemdia Clever Content/Mirage. (Thanks) I agree with you on the issue of watermarks. If placed correctly, removing them will leave one with a less than desirable image. Both Artistscope and Alchemedia have systems where you can upload images to be protected. Does anyone know if I would be exposing the original images to the webmasters of these sites who in turn could steal them? I wonder about the server encrypting the images. Is this really safe? If I decide you use one of the above techniques, which is the hardest to crack? Of course I would use watermarked images.

login or register to post comments

A world of Insight on a single page...

Submitted by WyKeD on May 3, 2002 - 18:23.

Absolutely, outstanding, guys! I was looking for some of the same protection for a few different reasons. First of all I would like to say, "Skyguy500, Spoken like a true profit on the 'XP' thing. I agree totaly!" I know there is no 100% safe way to gaurd your valued photos. However, I am sure I speak for several of us when I say, I'm not looking to keep it out of EVERY ones hands. Just making it inconvenient for them to acquire the images, I suppose is more of my mission. Yes, the internet was designed to share content. However out of all of us out there doing this very thing, how many people actually have the ability to, or want to take the time to learn technology they have never seen before simply to steal our images. Our site was designed to allow people to view and review images created by us to decide whether or not they wish to have graphic work done by us. So... I simply look to make it difficult for the average joe to simply right click my pic to acquire it. If he wants it bad enough, he he'll have to decipher whatever protection is put on it right. We all know, "Not a problem!" My suggestion is this people, use several different methods simultaneously. Making it a serious pain in the ass to rip off your images is the true reason we are all having this discussion right? Keeping in mind that it can always be hacked up and stolen is the first lesson we must all face. Secondly, as a graphic designer, I often take images from other sites and chop them up and use small portions which I need from them. So, when I go to a site and it has some kind (any kind) of protection on it, I automatically leave it alone. First of all, they went through the trouble to TRY and stop us. I'll give them that. Besides with the amount of images splattered all over the net anway, you can find what you want somewhere else. Use code if you need. Just be sure and like the others said, "Water Mark" your images. Doing it precisely will, again as it has been stated here, make it difficult for them to get what they want out of it.

login or register to post comments

I don't care what kind of protection you use...

Submitted by Jay Blanchard on May 10, 2002 - 11:40.

..except for watermarking, unless I am really skilled at image manipulation, then I don't care about that either. Any picture online can be taken, no software (especially in a Windows environment) can stop that. Have any of you ever seen (I am surprised that it is not mentioned here, given that it has been around so long) SnagIT? TechSmith produces this tool that can capture portions of the screen...just use the cursor to define the area. Click, drag, save.

That also goes for "non-printable" PDF files, and anything else you don't want people to have. Don't want to share it? Don't put it out there.

login or register to post comments

another good article

Submitted by aardvark on August 26, 2002 - 19:22.

Stumbled across this thanks to thelist:
How Do I Stop People From Downloading My Graphics?

login or register to post comments

That damn MSIE image toolbar

Submitted by aardvark on August 26, 2002 - 21:33.

Internet Explorer 6.0 has a 'feature' called the image toolbar. Its sole purpose is to provide users, when hovering over an image, a toolbar to save the image right there next to the mouse. You should all read up on the image toolbar to be sure you know how it works, since it makes image theft easier than a right-click.

As developers, we can turn this off thanks to another proprietary meta tag:
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

login or register to post comments

Meta tags, plugins, whatever...

Submitted by skyguy500 on August 27, 2002 - 08:21.

No matter what is done to protect an image from being copied, this utility that I developed will get it. Any takers up for the Pepsi challenge?

login or register to post comments

image theft

Submitted by jennifer on January 13, 2003 - 13:44.

I don't know if this topic is still on your agenda(last comment 8/27) but I have been working on some software to track stolen images on the web. I was impressed by your reviews of water marks and other web security options and I would like your feedback on the technical side of our software application and its usefulness. Review our demo and stats www.byteshark.com

login or register to post comments

Copy Protect Image

Submitted by tabari3 on March 11, 2003 - 05:06.

I've just run across Elisar.com. It claims to be the best method to copy protect web images. Has any tested this one? Although it is a bit expensive, it seems to work a lot smother than Artistscope's Copysafe Pro.

login or register to post comments

Copy Protect Image

Submitted by bisho on April 20, 2003 - 16:26.

After reading the post about Elisar's system I checked it out... there is nothing smooth about the their system excpet for the image upload which places your image on their server. After that it is not clear sailing... you have use a specially coded link on your web page and your site visitor needs to download and use a SPECIAL VIEWER. How many site visitors will bother with this just to see your pic. Copysafe still seems to be the best option and what's more, their copy protection is not limited to images uploaded to their server. The program is also available for protecting images that you can have on YOUR OWN WEB SITE or on CD!

login or register to post comments

Copysafe is secure enough!

Submitted by artistscope on March 20, 2004 - 00:13.

Nothing on the web is 100% secure and we do NOT make any claims that our solutions are. Nor do we give out prizes for anyone who wants to try to undermine what owners of intellectual property need for the web. Apparently some of the comments made here have discouraged some users from using copy protection at all. Have they succeeded or just cooled off the insecure and gullible ones? Different people are looking for different areas of protection, and it is their responsibilty to test/evaluate the product according to their requirements... and not other people's. There are many areas in which image and page content is exposed to methods and devices for saving/stealing, etc. First decide what you want protected and then which avenues need protecting. You will find almost most of them covered by Copysafe depending on how you use it. ArtistScope also have tools for compiling and protecting web style content on CD.

login or register to post comments

Don't seem to WANT to sell the product

Submitted by Donnell on March 21, 2006 - 01:28.

I've been trying to get a response all day . . . . tried to buy . . . . got hit with a sig on file print and fax thing. Extremely frustrating - I called even - no help there. They don't want to sell anything at artistscope . . . . if anyone else has a similar product I'd love to know about it.

login or register to post comments

I take a combined approach

Submitted by Heironymous on October 25, 2006 - 14:58.

It's really a tradeoff between good design, useability and security. If you become overzealous in protecting your images then your site becomes less user friendly. I personally always watermarks my photos with name and copyright info. It's not pretty but it works. I have however caught plenty of people cropping out the watermark, so I try to place it so that cropping it ruins the image. I don't watermark my photos directly in the middle of the image because actual paying customers like to see what they are getting. --Andrew New York & Washington DC Photo Prints

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.