The myth of copy protection

techsup · Feb 15, 2011

Hi guys!

I do tech support for a photographer. She wants to distribute comp CDs with images on, so customers can get an impression. She also wants those images to be copy proof.

I say it can't be done... she says other photographers are doing it, but I can't find any tools for it.

Tried the usual silly buggers - burning RAW-data to prevent copying, encrypting files etc. I can always retrieve images.

So I need a clear answer: has anybody managed to copy protect photos on a disc? How?

Found a few threads on the boards, mostly supporting my view... hope somebody can prove me wrong

e.rose · Feb 15, 2011

YOU'RE the tech guy... if it can't be done, tell her it can't be done... and when she says other photographers are doing it, tell them it's because they're stupid enough to believe it can be done :lol:

If she's that admit about not allowing people to copy the images... why the hell doesn't she go to see the clients and show them the proofs herself? That's really the only way you're going to prevent people from copying anything.

But hey... I'm not a tech girl... so what do I know? :lol:

ghache · Feb 15, 2011

Create a multimedia slideshow where the pictures are actuallly embedded into the multimedia file.
there is tons of software out there that does it. (Adobe autoware)
are you really a tech?

Im not sure but i think lighroom creates mp4 slideshows you can burn
watermark the pictures on the dvd

techsup · Feb 15, 2011

@e.rose - yeah, I should just put my foot down... or bill her for my time

@ghache - I thought Lightroom embedded using flash, which isn't supported on a lot of dvd players. Often there's an html fallback, but then we're back to storing images in files, right?

One continous mp4 of images might not be a bad idea. It would slow down people wanting to rip the images. Or make them download something like AXV that'll pop out a shot of the image displayed every xx seconds.

Davor · Feb 15, 2011

possibly this is what ur looking for Copy Protect v.1.0.0 Final - Taringa!

then again whats to stop someone from taking a print screen and cropping the image and saving it.

techsup · Feb 15, 2011

@Davor - looks promising; I'll find a legit source and give it a go.

KmH · Feb 15, 2011

You're right - she's wrong. (screen shot)

Yes, copy protection is a myth.

techsup · Feb 16, 2011

For anyone considering Copy Protect v.1, be aware that protection is achieved by converting image to an exe. For most purposes this means you can't view them on a dvd-player, and you can't browse through pics on PC.

skieur · Feb 16, 2011

It can be made much more difficult to copy and less likely for one who does not know what you did to the photo, but I am certainly not going to detail the method on an open forum.

skieur

JG_Coleman · Feb 16, 2011

Well... the problem is really one of degree. It sounds like she wants a 100% guarantee that nobody is going to steal her image. No such guarantee exists.

The bottom line is this: if it can be viewed digitally (ex. on a computer monitor, on a television screen) then it can be "ripped" using any of a number of screen capture processes and/or hardware. The photograph could be encrypted so tightly that the world's finest code-breakers couldn't unravel it... but if the unscrambled image is ultimately displayed on any viewing device intact and decoded... it's all for nothing. At least, that is, if you're looking for some kind of "absolute" theft prevention.

Whether or not it's shown as a still image or nestled within a video is irrelevant. You can take a screen shot of a video just as easily as still image.

You can, of course, watermark them. But unless the watermark is going to literally span the entire photograph, then it can be cropped out or cloned out.

You can reduce the usefulness of stolen copies by distributing the images at a lower resolution in a video. For example, a 720p video will only supply thieves with a 1280x720 capture... a paltry 0.9 megapixel version. Even 1080p video would only yield a 2 megapixel copy. This will prevent people from stealing a copy of sufficient resolution to make a worthwhile print. However, if the thief just wants to use the image digitally (ex. on a website, in a document, etc), all they'll need are low-res versions.

So... I'm back where I began. The problem is one of degree. Photographs cannot be "theft-proof"... but they can be made "theft-resistant". That's really the best you can hope for.