Copy Protecting Picture Files

[dandaluzphotography]

Hi,

I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here, but I am wondering how I would copy protect images that I would give as proofs to clients.

My thought would be to add a watermark to each picture, but is there a simple way (perhaps in PS) to disable right clicking on the images?

Thanks,
Danny

 

[480sparky39 38]

Are you giving them prints, or the actual electronic files on a CD?

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Are you giving them prints, or the actual electronic files on a CD?

CD.

 

[KmH]

If it can be displayed on a computer display, it can be copied. (screen shot)

Watermarks can be removed (crop, or clone).

Prints can be scanned.

You're pretty limited to limiting the pixel dimensions of the photo and reducing the file size. Those measures will limit the quality of any enlargements made from a purloined photo.

I highly recommend proofing in person, rather than letting clients take proofs away.

 

[Dao]

Maybe just resize them so that it is only good for viewing on the screen, but not for print. (too small) Of course, they can still print them out.

I will forget about protecting your image. Of course, you can water mark your images. Small water mark is useless, big water mark make the photos looks bad for presentation.

Even with water mark, people were able to restore it. As for right click. Image is a data file and it has nothing to do with the program that view the image. The program controls how you interface with the data (image) such as single click or right click.


Maybe a legal statements or signed contract make more sense.

 

[Big Mike]

As mentioned, there really aren't any 'total solutions' for protecting digital images. They are meant to be seen on a screen, and anything that can be put onto the screen, can be copied. Watermarks can be removed but tend to really lesson the impact of the images if they are used to intrusively (covering the whole image etc.).

There are several things you can do to make it harder for people to copy/steal your images...but the fact is that if you put them out there (CD, web etc.) then they are up for grabs.

One part of the problem, is that the general public are generally ignorant of image copyright. They don't think they are doing anything wrong by copying or printing images that you give/show them. So I think that you can help to alleviate the problem by educating your clients. Tell them what they are allowed to do with the images and explain how 'the system' is supposed to work. Hopefully your clients are the type of people who won't take advantage of you, once they know better.

As for proofing...I agree that giving clients a CD for proofing, isn't really a good idea. Besides the fact that you are essentially giving them digital copies of the images...it can also limit your ability to wow them with the images. I think that most photographers agree that the 'best' way to show clients images (when the goal is to sell them prints etc.) is to put them into a comfortable place (and state of mind) and show them the images in person. A great way is to use a projector and put them up very large...maybe with emotional music playing etc. If this is the only way and time that they get to see the images, they are more likely to buy the images right then and there. If you just give them the CD to look at on their own...they may not get to it right away...and the excitement will fade (and thus your sales as well). Also, they may be satisfied to just look at the proofs on their computer and never actually buy prints (or when they do, it's likely that they won't spend as much on prints).

I do my proofing on-line. It has many of the same pit-falls as giving them a disc, but it's better in some aspects. They can view, but also purchase prints right from my web site and they can pass the site along to their distant friends & family, who can also purchase prints etc.
But in terms of making money through print sales...the 'projecting' technique really does seem to be the best.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Thanks for all the responses. I think the easiest thing for me would be to create a smaller sized copy and lower the ppi to a very low amount.

My opinion is that most people don't want to print images (maybe except wedding photos). What with all the e-albums and different ways to display images digitally (frames, etc...). Having said that, would it be appropriate to sell a client a digital copy that they could then print on their own if they choose to? Say, for example, a full size tiff file that they could do with whatever they please? My idea is that for proofs, I could email clients a small sample with reduced resolution (in case they do try to print) and if they like it, they pay and I send them the full size tiff and jpeg of the image.

Danny

 

[KmH]

Thanks for all the responses. I think the easiest thing for me would be to create a smaller sized copy and lower the ppi to a very low amount.

PPI only apples if an image will be printed. PPI is meaningless for electronic display, the pixel dimensions of the image and the file size are the only numbers that have any meaning.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Thanks for all the responses. I think the easiest thing for me would be to create a smaller sized copy and lower the ppi to a very low amount.

PPI only apples if an image will be printed. PPI is meaningless for electronic display, the pixel dimensions of the image and the file size are the only numbers that have any meaning.

Right. Pixels per inch for printing. That's what I meant. If I give them a file with a very low ppi they can view it on screen but when they try to print it looks like garbage.

I should have been more clear. The idea is to give a client a small sized file with a reduced ppi that they can clearly view on screen but cannot print. If they like the file, they get a 300 ppi, full size tiff and jpeg that they can have printed up to the maximum possible size.

Danny

 

[KmH]

Right. Pixels per inch for printing. That's what I meant. If I give them a file with a very low ppi they can view it on screen but when they try to print it looks like garbage.

It won't look like garbage if they reset/resample the PPI before they make a print.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Right. Pixels per inch for printing. That's what I meant. If I give them a file with a very low ppi they can view it on screen but when they try to print it looks like garbage.

It won't look like garbage if they reset/resample the PPI before they make a print.

Thanks for that. That I didn't know. I thought once you changed it on the original it couldn't be reversed. At least I'll be somewhat covered with the small size.

Thanks!

Danny

 

[KBM1016]

I hate to say it but I got totally screwed this way! I did portraits for a dance studio then posted them on the web for proof viewing. I got wind that the parents were taking screen shots, cropping my watermark out, then printing low res prints of their own. Lesson learned, unless you scrawl "PROOF" across their faces (or other prominent parts of the photo) they will always find a way to steal your work.