Speaking of image hosting sites.

[Rickbb]

I've never really been a fan of posting my work online, this forum is an exception for me. I'm too worried about it getting stolen or otherwise used without my permission or knowledge.

In my previous life in the printing industry, I've had to give testimony in lawsuits for using images our customers swore they had rights to. Turns out some they did and some they didn't.

So, it instilled a bit of paranoia in me.

Since we now live and die all things digital and watermarks can be easily removed, I've been reading up on the invisible web beacon, aka, "spy pixel". Has me wondering if that could be incorporated into an image file as a way of tracking views, downloading and such.

For those not familiar, a web beacon is an image file that only has one single transparent pixel. You load it to a web site, email attachment, etc. with a web header tag that runs a script that logs whatever you tell the script to log.

Facebook, Google, Tit Tok, etc. they all use this now instead of the more easily beatable cookies to track you and send you targeted ads.

If we merge that image/tag into a jpg of an image we should be able to track its use.

What say you fellow citizens of the matrix, doable, silly, etc.???

 

[DigiFilm]

I used to worry about the same thing. I joined Pixy to track who was using my images. Pixy found one being used in a B-17 bomber historical video in the UK. They were sent a cease and desist, they didn't. So, what's my recourse? Well, not much and they know it. Even if I could force them to take it down the cost to do so would be far more than any income I might gain, and it's just a historical group/club anyway.

Doing what I do now, my images get posted all over the place, hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of times on FB. They get used on advertising for local clubs and racing events. As such, it's become a big 'meh'. The key is to post a small enough image and drop the quality of the jpeg. It'll still look ok on someone's phone screen, but it stops the average user from Hi-Res posts and large prints. If they want to do that, they have to buy the files from me or they can buy prints.

The other day I was approached by someone who wanted to use one of my shots on a website for a company that makes motorcycle parts. I offered them a heck of a deal, below my typical file price for commercial use, because the person who asked is an acquaintance. They declined. So, I've been checking their website to make sure they don't take liberties. That one would make me angry! It's one thing to have an individual or local club use your stuff because they like it, quite something else for a company to use it to make money.

Of course, if someone really wants your image and they have the know-how, they can upscale, erase watermarks, and pretty much undo whatever you've done, so even thorough measures are no guarantee.

It all comes down to this: If you post images on the internet, and someone likes a shot, they will take it. It's the wild west out there, and due to the cost involved to recoup royalties, it's hardly worth it effort unless you make a living at it, and then it's worth whatever you can do.

 

[Rickbb]

Never said they weren't, was just asking about using the existing web tracking technology to track where they are being used.

And most of what I've posted here is only a very small portion of what I have/do. And, IMHO anyway, not my best work.

 

[Rickbb]

I used to worry about the same thing. I joined Pixy to track who was using my images. Pixy found one being used in a B-17 bomber historical video in the UK. They were sent a cease and desist, they didn't. So, what's my recourse? Well, not much and they know it. Even if I could force them to take it down the cost to do so would be far more than any income I might gain, and it's just a historical group/club anyway.

Doing what I do now, my images get posted all over the place, hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of times on FB. They get used on advertising for local clubs and racing events. As such, it's become a big 'meh'. The key is to post a small enough image and drop the quality of the jpeg. It'll still look ok on someone's phone screen, but it stops the average user from Hi-Res posts and large prints. If they want to do that, they have to buy the files from me or they can buy prints.

The other day I was approached by someone who wanted to use one of my shots on a website for a company that makes motorcycle parts. I offered them a heck of a deal, below my typical file price for commercial use, because the person who asked is an acquaintance. They declined. So, I've been checking their website to make sure they don't take liberties. That one would make me angry! It's one thing to have an individual or local club use your stuff because they like it, quite something else for a company to use it to make money.

Of course, if someone really wants your image and they have the know-how, they can upscale, erase watermarks, and pretty much undo whatever you've done, so even thorough measures are no guarantee.

It all comes down to this: If you post images on the internet, and someone likes a shot, they will take it. It's the wild west out there, and due to the cost involved to recoup royalties, it's hardly worth it effort unless you make a living at it, and then it's worth whatever you can do.

But you could expose their theft, you know put them in a virtual public stock and a scarlet letter for them.

 

[DigiFilm]

But you could expose their theft, you know put them in a virtual public stock and a scarlet letter for them.

If I ever see something on a commercial site, especially one that declined to pay for the use, I would make the effort. It’s just not worth messing with locals.