Any Way to Prevent Screen Grabbing?

[image insight]

I believe the answer is "no," but is there any technology "out there" that prevents a screen grab or screenshot?  Many thanks.

[kaelaria]

Ah, no.

[GregW]

Only an image of sufficiently low size and quality as to render it worthless grabbing in the first place.

[Panopeeper]

It would be horrendeous if it was possible.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If you reduce it to 1 pixel by 1 pixel, it isn't likely to be ripped off. But then, the image quality might be a tad scanty.

[DarkPenguin]

If you reduce it to 1 pixel by 1 pixel, it isn't likely to be ripped off. But then, the image quality might be a tad scanty.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sure genuine fractals could restore it.  It adds details, dontchaknow?

[John.Murray]

LOL!

Actually, some video streams won't "grab", QT, WMV immediately come to mind.  Flash streams (and all flash content) can be scraped.  Obviously not a great way to display pics . . .

-John

[kaelaria]

Yes they will.  All streaming media can be saved on the fly.  There are countless utils to do so that save from the memory buffer.

[John.Murray]

I stand corrected!  Beyond a simple [Alt]+[PrtScrn] you'll need one of these:

http://all-streaming-media.com/record-vide...re-software.htm

-John

[Jonathan Wienke]

The bottom line is that if the user can view it or listen to it, then the user can save it. Period. Unless you're willing to countenance a world where all the hardware is locked, and under the exclusive control of whoever sold it to you, and even that is no guarantee. Apple's failed attempts to limit 3rd-party software for the iPod Touch / iPhone is a great example.

[airchinapilot]

I work for a company that is the leader in online survey content encryption. Part of our technology puts up barriers to screen capturing including scanning your system to see if you are running any screen capture programs or programs that could capture the screen and then disabling them for the length of the browser session. There are other parts of our technology that prevents saving to the cache.

Even with that we do not claim there is a foolproof method for preventing screen capturing which is why some of our clients insist on watermarking their content. We do stuff like record the user's IP and display that over the content so that if they do stuff like point a camera at the screen and take a picture, their IP is displayed. Yes, we and the clients know that the IP is not a good identifier.

Obviously, this kind of restrictive control is not advisable for a photographer's gallery.

[sniper]

I work for a company that is the leader in online survey content encryption. Part of our technology puts up barriers to screen capturing including scanning your system to see if you are running any screen capture programs or programs that could capture the screen and then disabling them for the length of the browser session. There are other parts of our technology that prevents saving to the cache.

Even with that we do not claim there is a foolproof method for preventing screen capturing which is why some of our clients insist on watermarking their content. We do stuff like record the user's IP and display that over the content so that if they do stuff like point a camera at the screen and take a picture, their IP is displayed. Yes, we and the clients know that the IP is not a good identifier.

Obviously, this kind of restrictive control is not advisable for a photographer's gallery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While I understand where your coming from, disabling items on a persons computer could well be illegal in some countries, you'd be interfearing with someones property without their consent, probably criminal damage (and I'd sue) plus theres easy ways to hide or change your IP, so with the best will in the world, sadly you can't stop people stealing your pics if they are on the net.
Best bet is watermark them and make them low res.  Wayne

[sbacon]

While I understand where your coming from, disabling items on a persons computer could well be illegal in some countries, you'd be interfearing with someones property without their consent, probably criminal damage (and I'd sue) plus theres easy ways to hide or change your IP, so with the best will in the world, sadly you can't stop people stealing your pics if they are on the net.
Best bet is watermark them and make them low res.  Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe airchinapilot was pointing out that there is software that will prevent screen scraping and other capture methods, but that it is not really applicable for photographers displaying their images to the general public. This type of software is used in highly secure environments - government, financial, etc. - and is installed by those responsible for the maintenance of the systems. These environments are not used by, or accessible to, the general public. I, too, have worked with several such software applications.

So... Is there a way to set up an environment that prevents all methods of copying an image viewed in an internet browser? Yes.

But... Is it plausible for photographers and other artists to implement such methods on their websites which are accessible by the general public? Nope. Not if you want visitors to your website.

[sniper]

A person could still photograph the screen, and with the right equipment I could sit outside the building and view whats on the screen and capture it, unless the computer is shielded by a faraday cage. so the real answer is no.   Wayne

[airchinapilot]

Our technology works over the Internet so it is not an administrator-controlled environment.

But it requires signing by the person participating in the survey. So it is public, but it does require that the participant to agree to allow their screen capturing programs to be shut off by the browser if they choose to enter the survey. There is an agreement and sometimes a form. Technically, you could do it so that their permission is not asked. All it is is a button, after all, with whatever text you want it to say. But of course it is not ethical to not warn the user what is happening.

Again, I stress I would not suggest this as an optimal user experience for a photo gallery (participants in the surveys we do get a reward or are somehow compensated so that is their motivation to temporarily allow their browser to be controlled). Technically, though, you could say ask the site visitor to agree to certain restrictions and, by continuing, agree to abide by X conditions including licensing, and then click the button to go into the 'protected' gallery.

One thing I should point out is that we only put up barriers to copying and the time frame for the content we protect is very short. Neither us nor our clients are under any illusions that the content is going to be protected for all time. It is only sufficient that it is embargoed until the real release. By then the survey is over and there is no currency in protecting it.

Again I repeat:
"Obviously, this kind of restrictive control is not advisable for a photographer's gallery."

By the way, as with many things on the Internet, this type of issue has been hashed to death earlier by the pornography industry. The have an advantage in that their content is much sought after so they are able to charge memberships, all the while providing free samples to get people to come to their site. At the same time, their content eventually, always, gets out. For individual thieves, there is not much they can do. But they do watch for sites that try to pirate their content and they resort to lawyers.

[Panopeeper]

Our technology works over the Internet so it is not an administrator-controlled environment

I wonder what kind of technology can disable any functions in my system without my consent short of utilizing an uncorrected error in the system, like hackers. I am very restrictive in my system, don't allow any garbage running on my computer without my knowledge.

[airchinapilot]

As I said before, it is *with* consent. I think the more I write on this the more I am going to be misunderstood. So let's just leave it at that.

I'm not trying to shill for the company that I am not naming. I am just providing insight from other industries.

[rdonson]

The ability to protect content on PCs is why Microsoft and our wonderful friends at MPAA and RIAA can't wait to lock up PCs with HDCP.  They've bought congress and wrangled the DMCA so this is the next frontier for them.

As airchinapilot says you can do certain things but as long as the video and audio cards are accessible to programmers you can't stop it completely.

[Tim Lookingbill]

My question is why bother.

I mean how does one make money stealing someone else's work and get away with it. To make money with an image you first have to make sure everybody sees it so they can purchase it. Do you know how hard it is to market an image? Think about it.

I think we're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

But please correct me because, I download and screengrab all the time especially to show someone a very interesting piece of work that someone did. I name that person/photographer/artist and he/she gets free publicity.

Dabreeze did a fantastic rendering of the Grand Canyon and posted it in an LL thread titled "Schewe the sharpener" from which I often provide links to in other forums I frequent because I like this image so much. Sadly, Dabreeze doesn't leave a link to his website, gallery or provide a real name so he can be reached if someone wanted to purchase a print of this fantastic capture. Oh well.

I dragged and dropped it and show it around my small town community. Folks are amazed and they ask who's Dabreeze? I tell them I haven't a clue.

Do you really want to stop this..I MEAN REALLY!? GEEZ!

And oh, I'll even confess to doing this. I had the very large Dabreeze downloaded image printed on poster sized canvas off a wide format HP 5000PS printer as a test print. IT LOOKED LIKE SHIT and so I gave it away to a down and out neighbor of mine who loved it.