Image size on the web to prevent unwanted use

[tommm]

Hi,

Not sure if this is the right forum but...

Just wondering what peoples current thinking is regarding preventing unwanted / unauthorised use of images from the web. Currently I limit file sizes of images I put on the web (website, Fickr, etc) to 1024 pixels on the long side and don't worry if people try and use it - as they're not going to be able to do anything beyond screen display with it. But with iPads and high resolution screens now having 2000+ pixels on the long side I'm thinking I'll have to increase my image sizes but worry that it's starting to get to the point where images will then be usable for print purpose (especially with some people recommending images of 4000 pixels for ipad use so they are zoom-able).

What do you do? What size images do you put on your websites, Flickr, Facebook, etc. And do you use watermarking as an alternative way of protection?

[louoates]

Welcome to the digital world of thievery. With today's sophisticated up-res software and image manipulating tools no image is theft-proof. Especially if the end use is for web display. I've learned to accept the reality of unauthorized use as just another cost of doing business. Best if you design for the devices intended so that legitimate viewers can view your work without too much ugliness of agressive watermarking.

[Iluvmycam]

If a photog uses a 23kb image, it will only print up a postage stamp! These are just rough guideines.

200kb yields a 4 x 6...just.

800kb for an 6 x 8

1.5mb for 8 x 10 print

I keep a guest portfolio of photogs I like. I Print up their work and write their name on the backs of the prints. I show it around when I get company that like photography, in addition to my own portfolio.

My own online work used to be 800 kb with a watermark. Now that I distribute to museums and rare book libraries, it is 200 kb and no watermark. I just name the file with my copyright info. My photos are 'kinda' iconic. Hard to mix up with other's work. So I am not very worried.

[langier]

Trust everybody, but brand your cattle.

My website is all watermarked and most postings to FB, etc. are both small, usually less than 750 pixels and marked with my copyright, name and website, especially sine FB strips out the metadata.

The key is small and to put my name on the front of the image.

[PeterAit]

My approach is to not fret about it. As someone else has mentioned, there is no way to prevent image theft - you may deter it or reduce it, but that's all.

Plus, there is so much fantastic photography on the web for people to steal, why would they choose yours?

Finally, think of the time you might spend with anti-theft measures. Wouldn't that time be better spent in other pursuits?

Cheers!

[David Eichler]

Nothing much you can do, as mentioned above, unless you make the photos small, low quality, and put a watermark in the middle of the photo, which doesn't help to display your work. However, I do watermark photos I post to social media sites such as Facebook, because of their terms of use, which say they claim the right to distribute the photos to third parties without compensation to, or notification of, the photographer. It is illegal to remove a copyright notice in the US at least. This will not necessarily stop thievery though.

[tommm]

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for not responding sooner.

I wonder what's going to happen when screen resolution starts reaching 4000 or 6000 pixels on the long side, it's going to be tricky to display good looking images without being at risk of people having access to virtually original file quality....

[louoates]

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for not responding sooner.

I wonder what's going to happen when screen resolution starts reaching 4000 or 6000 pixels on the long side, it's going to be tricky to display good looking images without being at risk of people having access to virtually original file quality....

I would imagine by that time a workable image protection scheme would emerge.

[Ken Bennett]

A buddy of mine brought over an old CD of pictures of his kids, shot on film and scanned at Costco. The files are 4x6 inches at 300ppi, so 1200x1800 pixels. With a little work in Lightroom, I was able to make a decent 16x20 inch print on an Epson 3800 on lustre finish paper.

Yeah, I was surprised too.

[Peter McLennan]

Cory Doctorow, a very successful author and anti-DRM activist, gives most of his work away. If you want to purchase it, fine.  But it's also available free. 

He maintains that, like photographers and authors, remaining unknown is a far greater barrier to success than piracy.

[bill t.]

^But not only have the people who steal my images been remiss about crediting me, they have in several cases credited my images to themselves, either specifically or by inference!

[Kirk Gittings]

Cory Doctorow, a very successful author and anti-DRM activist, gives most of his work away. If you want to purchase it, fine.  But it's also available free. 

He maintains that, like photographers and authors, remaining unknown is a far greater barrier to success than piracy.

So how does this "successful" author make a living by giving his work away?
If a student came to me with this strategy I would send him to a shrink.

[Peter McLennan]

This "successful" author is well documented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow

[Kirk Gittings]

It really doesn't indicate how he makes his living, but he writes for magazines like Wired who do enforce their copyright. So maybe thats where he derives income. The people I know who are vocally behind similar philosophies make their living some other way than their photography. One is a trust funder who volunteers at non-profits-the other works in the oil industry.

[louoates]

Most photographers I know freely give the use of images to various charities, schools, and other deserving causes. Where most of us get disturbed is when image use is taken (stolen) without asking. That's why I rarely search Google using key words from my best selling stock images. Just too many thieves to get worked up about. I also get thievery from my own web site from time to time that I know about let alone what I don't know about. You just have to accept internet piracy as a fact of life and get on with your creative life. I'm not one to cower in the corner doing nothing, fearful that I might get ripped off.

[SunnyUK]

My approach is to not fret about it. As someone else has mentioned, there is no way to prevent image theft - you may deter it or reduce it, but that's all.

Plus, there is so much fantastic photography on the web for people to steal, why would they choose yours?

Finally, think of the time you might spend with anti-theft measures. Wouldn't that time be better spent in other pursuits?

Cheers!

What a wonderfully pragmatic approach. I fully agree!

[jnmoore]

I don't worry about this because I don't care if my image is spread around the web. Since it is always 72dpi, nowhere near a good print resolution, it can not be easily printed in high quality but only viewed on screens.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I don't worry about this because I don't care if my image is spread around the web. Since it is always 72dpi, nowhere near a good print resolution, it can not be easily printed in high quality but only viewed on screens.

Hi,

72dpi is not what is important, it's the number of pixels that determines the potential for other uses than a monitor/display output.

Cheers,
Bart

[jayboat]

So how does this "successful" author make a living by giving his work away?
If a student came to me with this strategy I would send him to a shrink.

You are not seeing where the value lies, and probably shortchanging the kid.

One is not 'giving ... work away' by posting it on the world wide web.

As others have noted here, you simply cannot be worried about last generation's issues.

Ok, I came on to post an intro thread... 
I'll go do that now.

[Bullfrog]

I've experimented with water marks and while I can post a much larger image - I now feel its pointless. 
While my watermark protects it, the impact of the image is lost.
So, I've gone the route of smaller images without water marks.
I'm now in the range of 253KB - and think I will go a tad smaller (200KB)

Its a conundrum because yes, on one hand, who's to say anything I do will even be noticed let alone worthy of theft and my attempts to prevent that may make my offerings less attractive - but on the other hand, the more obscure your brand is, the easier it is to steal.

Photographers with high visibility are more likely to be notified of a fraud.  So, its easy to say "who cares" or accept some shrinkage (freebies) when you are in the top quartile.