Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:02 am
by JayBird
You may want to check out this software that will encrypt your images - http://www.artistscope.com/secure_image/demo0.htm

This program will not allow:
Saving from the web page and contents with mouse and browser commands.
Site and file grabbers, search and spider programs.
From browser cache or the Temporary Internet Folder.
Screen capture programs and PrintScreen.
Piracy and redistribution of server hosted files.

---------------------------

There is the option of using photoshop's digimarcs in your images. This basically embeds copyright information into your images. It won't stop people stealing your images, but whenever they are opened, it will display your copyright information.

It works by slightly changing the brightness of some of the pixels in the image (unoticeable to the human eye) which photoshop can read.

check it out at - http://www.digimarc.com/

Mark

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:35 am
by twigletmac
Bech100 wrote:You may want to check out this software that will encrypt your images - http://www.artistscope.com/secure_image/demo0.htm

This program will not allow:

Screen capture programs and PrintScreen.
Print Screen allowed me to capture the image they were using as a demo...

If methods like this worked they would be widespread, they don't work... They just annoy your users - java applets just to see an image...

Mac

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:46 am
by JayBird
oops, that was the wrong link

This is the one that disables print screen (and everything else) - http://www.artistscope.com/copysafe/

It works cos user of the website have to install a plug-in to view the images.

It is actually very good, but may intimidate the user because it disbales all the IE Toolbars, the Windows Quick Launch and stuff like that (only whilst viewing a protected image tho).

Mark

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:52 am
by twigletmac
Bech100 wrote:It works cos user of the website have to install a plug-in to view the images.
Sounds like a very effective method to stop your images getting stolen - users just leave your site without bothering to look at them. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way around it.

Mac

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:56 am
by JayBird
twigletmac wrote:Sounds like a very effective method to stop your images getting stolen - users just leave your site without bothering to look at them. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way around it.

Mac
Yup, maybe, but you can't have everything, there has to be some give and take.

I have done a website for an art gallery before, and all i did was show the images at a low enough resoution so they were good to view on screen but nothing else, and watermark them with the web address. This way, if anyone did steal the images, the gallery would maybe get some free traffic.

Mark

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:32 am
by m3rajk
Bech100 wrote:
twigletmac wrote:Sounds like a very effective method to stop your images getting stolen - users just leave your site without bothering to look at them. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way around it.

Mac
Yup, maybe, but you can't have everything, there has to be some give and take.

I have done a website for an art gallery before, and all i did was show the images at a low enough resoution so they were good to view on screen but nothing else, and watermark them with the web address. This way, if anyone did steal the images, the gallery would maybe get some free traffic.

Mark
that's the best thing you can do.

as twig said, the disabling is annoying at best. on top of that, anything i've seen that's even a plug in to disable is normally half cicked. the plug ins work in netscape to let you see, but not disable, or they do it all in netscape and not ie

and if they get those two they miss opera , galeon, etc (someone that reallllly wants it will look for other browsers if they aren't on linux in which case they know of and/or use them already)

i've yet to see someone use javascript to disable in bot netscape and ie... yet that's killed simply by turning off javascript.

the closest i've seen to using javscript in bot, netscape just gave the warning then let you right click.

i was looking for stuff for this for a sitre for a friend a few years back... nothing i've seen stops looking at the page source..


what i came up with was a javascript deterrent... it was in a single frame (page source doesn't work) that used javascript to make sure it's always called in the frame and to disable in ie and annoy in netscape. had the friend put tags someplace prominent and said i did hte best i could to stopping everything but printscreen, which as far as i knew then was impossible. somehow i doubt that program really stops it, and even if it does, we're right back at what twig said: most people don't like tohave to add plug ins, if it's not in a wide distribution it's more likely they'll go elsewhere than install the plug in.

recently, with all the trojans/viruses/worms people have been less likely to dl and install plug ins that haven't been around for a long while.. and some that have wont be anymore: ie comet cursor was shown to have been hacked into and had a trojan embedded by a hacker so for a week or so everyone installing or updating put it on.

most ppl i know stopped uing that.
i never did to begin with. right now the only plug ins i know ppl will actually use are quicktime, anything adobe, anything macromedia

those four things i'm thinking of in particular (quicktime, acrobat, shockwave, flash) have ben around long enough and are in wide enough use that people have come to trust the companies, and since they have been great in keeping their products relatively bug free, they can introduce new products.

if one of them add the printscreen kill (which i doubt works) then there's going to be a feasable option.

otherwise, you're choice are open it to be stolen or don't display.

also, there's two other things you can do with php... one is to have it dynamically made, that is a deterrrent because each one has the same name, the other one well.. here's the code for it:

Code: Select all

$fh=fopen($file,'r') or die("cannot open $file: $php_errormsg"); // get a filehandle
      $filetype=fread($fh, filesize($file)); // get the filetype? read the file (filehandle, file's size)
      fclose($fh); // close the file handle
      echo $filetype; // display the file?
that displays the image, and if your page is index.php, every image they try to save will read, index.php

they can't get the location, if you use the javascript deterrents you can block page source viewing and right clicking when it's on (there's gotta be a way to cover both netscape and ie correctly, if ot opera and galeon etc as well)

all that you can do is make a deterrent that's good enough to make most not dl it while letting ppl see it

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:47 am
by oldtimer
That code works nice but when it goes to save I can take out the .php and put in the .gif or whatever. But that along with it watermarked should work.

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:50 am
by Judas
USE a WATERMARK to PROTECT

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 12:03 pm
by JayBird
m3rajk wrote: if one of them add the printscreen kill (which i doubt works) then there's going to be a feasable option.
It does work, i actually installed the demo plugin, and tried numerous ways with the printscreen button and other screen capture programes. i couldn't get the image, all that was captured was a blank image.

Anyway, im not saying that this is an option, just saying that it is an option (not one i would use though).

Mark

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:55 pm
by JAM
Bech100 wrote: all that was captured was a blank image.
Yah, common thing dealing with for example mediaplayers, playing .avi/.mpg's. Some years ago I was trying to take a screenshot from a movie, but the image was blank.

Now, some players has that particular screenshot function (PowerDVD as example), but again, there are also other screencap software that still are able to pass by the "blank-image" syndrome.

I'd vote for the watermark described earlier..

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 2:47 pm
by Vincent Puglia
Hi,

Glancing only at the 2nd page of this thread, I gather the topic is protecting from 'piracy'

This:
If methods like this worked they would be widespread, they don't work...
is the only 'real' statement I saw. If I'm looking at something with my browser on my machine, I can take it -- sooner or later.

Vinny

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:50 am
by Cruzado_Mainfrm
hey, i just noticed that you can, instead of specifying a flash .swf file instead you specify a .jpg image, and it will show like if it were flash, and if you lower the quality by using the flash menu, u will see it get more smooth, mid-smooth, or not smooth at all. Use the same code that you will use to embed a flash, just change the source to a jpeg image.

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:36 pm
by nwp
JayBird wrote:
m3rajk wrote: if one of them add the printscreen kill (which i doubt works) then there's going to be a feasable option.
It does work, i actually installed the demo plugin, and tried numerous ways with the printscreen button and other screen capture programes. i couldn't get the image, all that was captured was a blank image.

Anyway, im not saying that this is an option, just saying that it is an option (not one i would use though).

Mark
Open the demo page in PC1 view PC2 with VNC and press print screen on PC2 you can get the image. remember while pressing print screen don't keep the vnc windows as an active window.
If you can disable JavaScript then you can press print screen I think.
remember you can Inject Javascript with apatana addon on mozilla.
You get get the Image from the browser cache.

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:38 pm
by feyd
This thread is four years old. Please let it stay dead.

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:39 pm
by nwp
Oh! sorry I got it from Google