mipakaco
|
posted on August 27, 2003 05:35:23 PM new
Hopefully someone can help. I sell 8x10 sports photos on ebay and through my website. I just got an email from someone who actually admitted that he was downloading the images from my website and printing them for display in his sports bar. I never even thought that someone could do that, but they are. If I sold widgets and someone steals the image, they don't steal the actual widget. Since what I sell is photos, they are actually stealing not just the image, but my product. Is there anything I can do to prevent the images on my website (and ebay as well),from being downloaded onto someone else's computer (other than putting a watermark, which I don't want to do)? If one person is doing this, I know there must be others, which is actually affecting my sales.
|
dacreson
|
posted on August 27, 2003 05:44:09 PM new
Hello
Their was a good thread here not long ago. WM don't really work.
If your items are selling perhaps is just an acceptable hazard.
Consider two scans of 40% only of picture or some creative idea like that. Make sure you split the focal point in half. Or perhaps scan 45% and in sure all knows is a FULL picture. Play around you will come up with a great idea. Good luck.......
|
Libra63
|
posted on August 27, 2003 07:19:21 PM new
This has nothing to do with eBay as it is your website and a bar owner. Maybe there is a way you could mark your picture across the neck or maybe some mark on the front so that it wouldn't really ruin the picture for you but for the bar owner he wouldn't be able to use it. I would write him back and politely ask him to stop. I doubt if you will ever know if he is still using them unless he lives around you and you can check.
Good Luck.
[ edited by Libra63 on Aug 27, 2003 07:21 PM ]
|
Dragonmom
|
posted on August 27, 2003 07:20:26 PM new
Interesting you should ask this one!
here are a few things you can try:
What you want to do is make your images perfect for the internet and nothing else. Your monitor only shows 72 ppi- no more images look better than that, but that's all that can be shown. first of all, check in your image program (Photoloft, Soap, photoshop, whatever) for something called IMAGE SIZE. It will give you choices as to how many pixels per inch you want. If you are printing, you want lots. But fo the internet, make your images 72 ppi- you can even make them less, like 68 ppi! Then you decide how bigf you want your image to be.
It will give you some choices as to how you want to figure the size- by inches or by pixels, usually. If you are printing you would go with inches, but you are working for the internet so you use pixel measurements. I make my images about 400 or 500 pixels wide, by whatever is proportionate. That makes them about the size of half a normal browser window, which for most of us is 800 pixels wide.
Those pictures will look just fine on the monitor, but will print out about four inches big, and crummy and blurry.
The other thing you can do is add a watermark, meaning a faint image over th epicture. there's a good example on this auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=3344377873
"And All Shall be Well, and All Shall be Well, and All Manner of Things Shall be Well"
[ edited by Dragonmom on Aug 27, 2003 07:26 PM ]
|
neroter12
|
posted on August 27, 2003 07:25:04 PM new
Hi.
I have seen many auctions with no photos still get bids. You may want to stop putting images in auctions altogether and put something in your description that tells why; and could they see your feedback to trust your description?
On 2nd thought, I dont know if that is a very good alternative because selling photographs probably needs the visual to help it get sold. But I dont know what else you could do. Maybe splitting them is better something to consider? Seems there should be something to protect your products. Good luck!
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on August 27, 2003 08:15:47 PM new
If the guy, and he's not Albert Einstein for even admitting it in the first place, only loaded the prints for his sports bar then what was the real harm? You never would not have even known if he didn't write and tell you. Maybe he'll give you a few free beers or something.
-------------- sig file ----------- He who angers you controls you
|
sapington
|
posted on August 27, 2003 08:20:46 PM new
You need to make them so that they get real blurry if enlarged at all. One easy way to do it is to resize them real small them resize big again. The smaller you can make them the better.
|
davebraun
|
posted on August 27, 2003 09:24:23 PM new
Scan at a low ppi with a small print size. If enlarged they will pixelate and be of no commercial use. You can right click disable your website but most savvy users can get past that lickety split. Copyright your original material.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
mipakaco
|
posted on August 27, 2003 10:09:14 PM new
Thanks for all the advice. I do have them at 72ppi, so hopefully they would look like crap if someone steals the image and enlarges it. As I said before, I sell actual photographs, so not putting images up for people to see is not possible. They want to see what they're buying. Splitting the images in half defeats the purpose, so I wouldn't do that either.
If you'd like to see the website, you'll see what I mean. Not sure how to make it a link, but the address is-
www.store.yahoo.com/mipakaco-photos
|
mipakaco
|
posted on August 27, 2003 10:15:50 PM new
Ace- the harm is, I have a few thousand dollars invested in negatives that go back as far as the late 1800's, which I produce these photgraphs from. I own the rights to these photos, and downloading these images off of my website is flat out stealing. As far as the guy giving me a few beers... I have no idea where he's from.
|
sparkz
|
posted on August 27, 2003 10:55:27 PM new
You can always try the javascript no copy routine. It will stop a dummy like this in his tracks. A truly determined thief can still get to it. The only other way I can think of would be to embed some self extracting code in the images that would render them usless when he tries to use them. This would take some help from a real graphics pro to accomplish. Hopefully, one of these days such a person will show up on this forum and teach us how to do it.
The light at the end of the tunnel will turn out to be an oncoming train.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on August 27, 2003 11:16:54 PM new
Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to stop the actual download and apparently there is nothing you can do to get this guy to do the right thing so your only recourse is to place a watermark in your image. If you go to Getty Images you will see what they are starting to impliment on their FPO imaages which is what I have found to be the most effective.
If you have a logo create a file that is about 50% of the image size you use. I assume that you are using Photoshop so this is actually quite easy. Create a psd file wit a single layer of your logo in white at 30% opacity. When you prepare images for your website just paste this layer on top of each of your images. It will allow the image itself to clearly be seen but will obstruct it enough that most thieves will leave it alone as only very experienced retouchers are going to be able to remove your mark.
It's a shame it has to be done that way but unfortunately it's the only way to protect your images.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
|
TheFamilyBiz
|
posted on August 28, 2003 05:49:42 AM new
mipakaco,
You have a very impressive catalog of images. I'm jealous.
However, I'd doubt your thief has anything that will look decent if he downloaded images from the site. I checked a few and your image size is just 112k on a couple of them -- definitely not anything that will print with any quality. You should be able to sleep better knowing that they'll look like crap if he hangs them up anywhere.
And, as far as accepting any offers of any beer from this cheapskate, don't accept - even if he recontacts you and invites you over. If he can't cough up $10 per image for prints to have hanging around his business, I'd hate to see what he does to stretch the beer.
Wayne
Trying to Make a Difference - One Satisfied Customer at a Time....
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on August 28, 2003 06:44:11 AM new
mipakaco,
I sell magazine advertisements... and I've had similar worries (although no proof that anyone downloaded and printed them like your guy did!) I also do not want to use a watermark for several reasons (covers up part of the image + it takes extra time!)
Here's a new suggestion for you... this is what I do, and I think it works! Rather than scan my images in, I take pictures with a digital camera. First of all... it's faster. Second, I found that with glossy ads, unless I took the shot at an angle, I'd get glare from the flash. Once I had the image taken at an angle... I realized something... it's GREAT preventation for someone who wants to print it! Since the image is now at a skewed perspective... you can't just print it off and expect it to look nice (the top would be narrower than the bottom) Sure... a skilled Photoshop user could fix it.... but compound that with the poor quality you get from a compressed JPEG... who'd want to?!? It doesn't stop people from using my image in their auctions... but, like you, that's not what I'm worried about. Give it a shot, and I think you'll be happy! (both on time saving & on protection for yourself!)
|
Dragonmom
|
posted on August 28, 2003 06:47:28 AM new
Mipakaco, I tried stealing a picture (of Jim Thorp (gorgeous picture) off your site. I printed it at 8x10. It isn't as clear as the image onthe site, but it would certainly be sharp enough for a bar owner.
I tried making the .gif image 185pp, and it came up grainy on the browser when I set it back to your original size of 285pp. I tried making it a JPG and it looked a little better. I would consider going with a watermark, unfortunately. That way you would not have to sacrifice the clarity of the images, which is one of the great things you have going for you.
"And All Shall be Well, and All Shall be Well, and All Manner of Things Shall be Well"
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on August 28, 2003 06:52:13 AM new
Oh... forgot to mention... I'm sure you know that as a professional photographer, the law is on your side. You could get a lawyer, sue the guy for copyright infringement, and win a nice settlement. The guy isn't just stealing your pictures for private use... he's publically displaying them. With his e-mail admitting his crime, you'd have no problem winning the case. Believe it or not, the ammount you could win on damages could actually mean that you might be the new owner of one sports bar! (seriously... talk to your lawyer and see what they tell you your options are... I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised!) Check out this URL
http://www.kyroslaw.com/articles/copyright_law_protection.html
[ edited by eauctionmgnt on Aug 28, 2003 06:55 AM ]
|
Fenix03
|
posted on August 28, 2003 08:14:35 AM new
Here is a sample of the technique I mentioned. The layer in this one is actually at 50%. You can see the whole photo and all of the details but it's obvious that it's not meant to be an image for display.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
|
Dragonmom
|
posted on August 28, 2003 09:04:39 AM new
Yeah! What Fenix said!
And you have the headers for the email, you can start the process of tracking the guy down...
"And All Shall be Well, and All Shall be Well, and All Manner of Things Shall be Well"
|
mipakaco
|
posted on August 28, 2003 10:32:59 AM new
The guy who took the images is now asking for permission to download my images (AFTER the fact that he had already done so). I emailed him back and told him not to, that the photos are copyrighted. He has since emailed to say he wouldn't be displaying them in his sports bar, and apologized. I have no way of knowing if he will indeed display them though. I figure if he was able to downloaded them, how many others have done the same thing, that I will never know about? (And would not be as honest to admit it like this guy did). I'm really not interested in going the legal route, over a few $10 photos. It's just the principle that irks me.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on August 28, 2003 10:58:05 AM new
Since you have someone there who is obviously interested in your photos why don't you offer him a deal. Give him a volume discount in exchange for displaying your URL someone in the bar for others that may be interested in the pics. If he takes you up on it, send him a stack of cards with your site info that he can give to anyone that compliments or asks about the pics. Turn Lemons into Lemonaid!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on August 28, 2003 11:36:11 AM new
mipakaco,
Just keep in mind... they're not $10 photos anymore. Once your copyright has been violated they become worth a minimum of $750 apiece up to a maximum of $150,000 apiece..... I still say talk with your lawyer and you'll be pleased with the results.
Oh... and here's an example of my ads with a skewed perspective:
http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/viewimage.x/00000000/eauctionmgnt/X04.jpg?&&pt=bidpay
[ edited by eauctionmgnt on Aug 28, 2003 11:37 AM ]
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on August 28, 2003 12:03:58 PM new
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."
-------------- sig file ----------- He who angers you controls you
|
dacreson
|
posted on August 28, 2003 12:50:19 PM new
Hello
Unlike Grape Trainer and several others I try to keep solutions simple and effective.
If I were you I would get a transparency with something like "Do Not Copy" or some such. Lay it down on the old flat bed scanner and then the photo. One scan all done. No bells no whistles and no other tweaking required. Have a nice day.
|
jnash
|
posted on August 28, 2003 08:50:55 PM new
Actually, if you're not the photographer then you're also not the
Copyright holder of the scan which is a derivative work.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on August 28, 2003 09:18:19 PM new
J - that is not neccesarily true. Many photographers sell their negs and copyrights to stock agencies. You see this quite frequently with vintage work where survivors will sell the collection. Also many news services and publications purchase copyright on published photographs.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
|
Dragonmom
|
posted on August 28, 2003 09:46:33 PM new
He owns the negatives, and the rights that pertain to them. That's the right to copy- the copyright.
"And All Shall be Well, and All Shall be Well, and All Manner of Things Shall be Well"
|
jnash
|
posted on August 28, 2003 10:11:12 PM new
Fenix03 - I agree. But if this seller has purchased a "box of images"
then that's all they have. Just a box full of images. And as owner of
the box of images they have something other people might want to
buy. And it seems almost necessary to me for them to scan the image
in order to advertise it properly. I'd imagine that could be construed as
fair use. But the scan would be a derivative work and not theirs to claim
Copyright to.
Now if they owned the negs as a "work for hire" or had purchased them
as "stock photos" or even been gifted them then they most likely own
the right to reproduce in any form. I'm also thinking the photos might be
so old they are in the Public Domain now. So who owns the Copyright
to a scan of a Public Domain Image? I have no clue here.
My first thought when I visited the site was, I wonder what Shoeless Joe
might think of his picture being on something called the Internet. Anyway,
I think the pictures are cool. I like seeing old stuff and new copies of old
stuff even. And preservation of old images. And old items. And History!!!!!!!
And I don't think it's fair of the Bar Keeper to copy the images from the
site to hang on the walls of his establishment when the person who did
the scanning was doing so in order to sell the photo. Maybe he didn't
think of that. Maybe mipakaco should consider sending him a photo
or two with his/her business card stapled to them to possibly drum up a
few sales from visitors to the bar.
|
jnash
|
posted on August 28, 2003 10:30:22 PM new
Dragonmom
Okay. Okay. I'm sorry but I don't know this seller personally. Couldn't
find anything on their site that mentioned that they own the rights to
the photos themselves. And I made the assumption that they had
photos for sale that they had purchased from some place or another.
I didn't realize that they owned the rights to the originals themselves.
Thanks for clarifying this! Now I understand.
|
