How do I discourage unauthorized use of artwork images on the internet?
April 2, 2011 11:01 AM
How do I discourage unauthorized borrowing of artwork images on the internet?
I work for an organization that has built a strong internet presence partly because people like to look at the photos of artwork, events, and more that we post. But lately we're finding more and more people are downloading our pictures and reposting them without permission or attribution. This is especially a problem with artwork because the use of the image is part of its value. Question is what do we do? Watermark all images before posting? Is there a way to prevent right-clicking and saving a image from a wordpress blog? From facebook?
I work for an organization that has built a strong internet presence partly because people like to look at the photos of artwork, events, and more that we post. But lately we're finding more and more people are downloading our pictures and reposting them without permission or attribution. This is especially a problem with artwork because the use of the image is part of its value. Question is what do we do? Watermark all images before posting? Is there a way to prevent right-clicking and saving a image from a wordpress blog? From facebook?
Anything that breaks normal web browser functionality (disabling right-clicking, etc.) will have unintended consequences. I would think watermarking each image would suffice, in that each image would then have its own attribution built in. Unless you're more concerned with the lack of permission for use rather than proper attribution. But certainly a watermark with your name/URL, while it can be cropped out, at least makes it clear what the reblogger is doing? (I wouldn't encourage you to add a small line like "Any use other than by MYURL.com is unauthorized" but I suppose that's a possibility.)
But honestly, looking for any solution other than proper attribution is swimming hard against the prevailing tide of the Internets.
posted by AndNeverWell at 11:11 AM on April 2, 2011
But honestly, looking for any solution other than proper attribution is swimming hard against the prevailing tide of the Internets.
posted by AndNeverWell at 11:11 AM on April 2, 2011
You can't really prevent rightclick in a browser. Any JavaScript can be disabled or worked around. Watermarks are the best solution I've found, and they're suboptimal too since they're either in an obnoxious place in the image, or somewhere that can be cropped out.
posted by Alterscape at 11:12 AM on April 2, 2011
posted by Alterscape at 11:12 AM on April 2, 2011
Don't prevent right-clicking. Its irritating because it interfers with me opening tabs AND it's very ineffective. I hate sites that do it. I think watermarking is the only thing that really works. I suggest "see-through" watermarks, that don't distort the image too badly but can still be read.
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:19 AM on April 2, 2011
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:19 AM on April 2, 2011
Dude, this is 2011. Unless your company makes money from the actual sale of the image, like a stock image site, discouraging the reuse of your images is a short sighted strategy.
People love your images enough to repost them, that's awesome! You should encourage that. The real problem is lack of attribution.
One of the ways to solve that: sharing your images through social media like Facebook or twitpics. Attribution is built-in.
posted by Tom-B at 11:49 AM on April 2, 2011
People love your images enough to repost them, that's awesome! You should encourage that. The real problem is lack of attribution.
One of the ways to solve that: sharing your images through social media like Facebook or twitpics. Attribution is built-in.
posted by Tom-B at 11:49 AM on April 2, 2011
I will add that most watermarks I see can be very easily removed, even if they're large and right in the middle of the picture. The point is that if someone wants to use an image without permission, they will. Disabling right clicks can be worked around quite easily.
posted by cp311 at 12:37 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by cp311 at 12:37 PM on April 2, 2011
Make it easy for people to repost it with attribution, and drive traffic back to your own site.
posted by Jairus at 1:02 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by Jairus at 1:02 PM on April 2, 2011
Flickr makes restricted images load as a css background, rather than in an IMG tag. That means you can't right-click and do 'save image', but like others say, if it appears on screen, it can be saved.
As for watermarking, one of my clients is a big art museum who can't visually modify artwork images in that way (to do so would be a violation of artists' moral rights, according to them). They do use digital watermarking though.
posted by cogat at 3:18 PM on April 2, 2011
As for watermarking, one of my clients is a big art museum who can't visually modify artwork images in that way (to do so would be a violation of artists' moral rights, according to them). They do use digital watermarking though.
posted by cogat at 3:18 PM on April 2, 2011
If it's up on the web, it's possible for people to save copies of it. That's just the way it works. Trying to block that will annoy people and not accomplish what you want it to. (Most of the time when I'm using Page Info->Media to get the URL for an image off Flickr, I'm muttering as I do "fuck you, Flickr, it's my goddamn photo that I took and if I want to link to it I'm going to".)
Rather than putting the watermark in the middle of the image (which reads as a "fuck you" to the viewer, I think), put it in the corner or on the side where it doesn't distort the image and make it easy for people to reblog and properly attribute it.
Most people are not coming at it from an attitude of "how can I steal from or degrade the value of the work of this artist?", they're coming at it from an attitude of "hey, check out this great image I found online! I love this artist!" Encourage that.
posted by Lexica at 4:58 PM on April 2, 2011
Rather than putting the watermark in the middle of the image (which reads as a "fuck you" to the viewer, I think), put it in the corner or on the side where it doesn't distort the image and make it easy for people to reblog and properly attribute it.
Most people are not coming at it from an attitude of "how can I steal from or degrade the value of the work of this artist?", they're coming at it from an attitude of "hey, check out this great image I found online! I love this artist!" Encourage that.
posted by Lexica at 4:58 PM on April 2, 2011
Make up a small logo containing an attribution and a URL for your organisation and put it in part of each image where it doesn't obscure anything important. Don't make it too annoying, and people are unlikely to bother cropping it out before they repost (you could put it in a small border at the bottom or side of the image, but that's more likely to be cropped out). You can't stop the images being reposted, but you can at least get a bit of free advertising out of it.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:54 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:54 PM on April 2, 2011
As someone who recently discovered* that one of my photographs has been ripped off by someone who used it as a cover image for their self-published book on Amazon, I feel your pain (as one our ex-presidents says). However, there's not much you can do to prevent this, other than not putting stuff online to begin with. As several people have said, technical solutions don't really work.
You can use TinEye.com to search for unauthorized reproductions online, and send a cease-and-desist letter (or DCMA takedown notice) to violators. But you need to decide whether this is worth your time and money.
*As in last week. My work has been too busy lately for me to deal with this, but since CreateSpace (Amazon's self-publishing arm) has a way to report copyright violations, I do have some leverage to request that the author provide me a remedy. (I've published a handful of photos and my normal "fee" is a credit and a donation in my name to Doctors without Borders, or if I want the publication, a credit and a copy of the publication.)
posted by brianogilvie at 8:42 PM on April 2, 2011
You can use TinEye.com to search for unauthorized reproductions online, and send a cease-and-desist letter (or DCMA takedown notice) to violators. But you need to decide whether this is worth your time and money.
*As in last week. My work has been too busy lately for me to deal with this, but since CreateSpace (Amazon's self-publishing arm) has a way to report copyright violations, I do have some leverage to request that the author provide me a remedy. (I've published a handful of photos and my normal "fee" is a credit and a donation in my name to Doctors without Borders, or if I want the publication, a credit and a copy of the publication.)
posted by brianogilvie at 8:42 PM on April 2, 2011
Do watermark -- folks who want to steal for stealing's sake are going to. The casual copiers aren't going to bother to remove it. But here's another thing you can do, and this might be a counter-intuitive suggestion: let them hotlink your images, and provide them the code to do so. Make it as simple as "copy and paste this HTML". The code you provide should include back-links. Basically, just copy as much of Flickr's "share this image" section as you can.
This has a cost: bandwidth. Bandwidth, generally speaking, is pretty cheap.
It has two benefits: 1) fewer people rehosting your images, at which point you lose all control over them, and 2) your statistics will show you where the images are being hosted, so you can go look for yourself (most of the time) to make sure it's all on the up and up.
This is not what a lot of old-tech content producers want to hear, but when it comes to pictures and the internet: they're going to be copied, distributed, and shared. You can either benefit from that social sharing, or you can try (and fail) to contain it. There is no third option.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:36 AM on April 3, 2011
This has a cost: bandwidth. Bandwidth, generally speaking, is pretty cheap.
It has two benefits: 1) fewer people rehosting your images, at which point you lose all control over them, and 2) your statistics will show you where the images are being hosted, so you can go look for yourself (most of the time) to make sure it's all on the up and up.
This is not what a lot of old-tech content producers want to hear, but when it comes to pictures and the internet: they're going to be copied, distributed, and shared. You can either benefit from that social sharing, or you can try (and fail) to contain it. There is no third option.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:36 AM on April 3, 2011
Watermarking outside of a stock photo site makes you look really paranoid of the internets. Stick to a copyright notice / URL in fine print at the bottom and a bottom right side logo, like TV networks do.
posted by tremspeed at 7:07 AM on April 3, 2011
posted by tremspeed at 7:07 AM on April 3, 2011
Isn't there a script that adds in some text when you try to copy-and-paste something? It's gotta work in websites, as I've seen it in multiple places across the web...
Do you have the ability to add the sharing buttons? Make it easier to share than copy elsewhere.
posted by chrisinseoul at 8:00 AM on April 3, 2011
Do you have the ability to add the sharing buttons? Make it easier to share than copy elsewhere.
posted by chrisinseoul at 8:00 AM on April 3, 2011
Tom-B said:
sharing your images through social media like Facebook or twitpics. Attribution is built-in.
How is attribution built into images posted on Facebook once they've been swiped?
Clarify please!
posted by dpcoffin at 9:00 AM on April 3, 2011
sharing your images through social media like Facebook or twitpics. Attribution is built-in.
How is attribution built into images posted on Facebook once they've been swiped?
Clarify please!
posted by dpcoffin at 9:00 AM on April 3, 2011
The easiest, laziest way to share a photo on Facebook is to use the built-in Like and Share functions, this drives traffic back to you.
posted by Tom-B at 12:18 PM on April 3, 2011
posted by Tom-B at 12:18 PM on April 3, 2011
And you also can see who's doing the liking and sharing of your pics, so you can start cultivating community around those people!
posted by Tom-B at 12:21 PM on April 3, 2011
posted by Tom-B at 12:21 PM on April 3, 2011
How is attribution built into images posted on Facebook once they've been swiped
I bolded your poor assumption. Facebook makes it easier to share information from the original poster (say, a Facebook page for OP's business) than to swipe and re-post the info. Sharing requires one or two clicks. Swiping it requires 8 clicks at a minimum, which includes downloading the file, finding it on your hard drive, re-uploading it, etc. The VAST majority of users are going to share the image with the built-in functionality, which maintains attribution.
posted by Tehhund at 6:56 PM on April 3, 2011
I bolded your poor assumption. Facebook makes it easier to share information from the original poster (say, a Facebook page for OP's business) than to swipe and re-post the info. Sharing requires one or two clicks. Swiping it requires 8 clicks at a minimum, which includes downloading the file, finding it on your hard drive, re-uploading it, etc. The VAST majority of users are going to share the image with the built-in functionality, which maintains attribution.
posted by Tehhund at 6:56 PM on April 3, 2011
Thanks for the answers everybody. We'll probably end up watermarking the images for now but I will also look into the other options mentioned. RE: sharing on facebook, most people do just click the share button and that's great, it's exactly what we want them to do. We have seen a couple people download images (of artwork) and reupload them to their own facebook pages with no attribution... I have no idea why.
posted by entropyiswinning at 8:11 PM on April 3, 2011
posted by entropyiswinning at 8:11 PM on April 3, 2011
"Is there a way to prevent right-clicking and saving a image from a wordpress blog?"
Not effectively
cogat writes "Flickr makes restricted images load as a css background, rather than in an IMG tag. That means you can't right-click and do 'save image', but like others say, if it appears on screen, it can be saved."
One of the interesting things about Ad Block Plus is it lists "blockable" elements on a page and their complete URL. Makes it really easy to grab the images breaking the web this way.
entropyiswinning writes "We have seen a couple people download images (of artwork) and reupload them to their own facebook pages with no attribution... I have no idea why."
Does facebook allow uploaders to remove images? If so preventing links from going bad at the uploader's whim is a common reason.
posted by Mitheral at 11:32 PM on April 3, 2011
Not effectively
cogat writes "Flickr makes restricted images load as a css background, rather than in an IMG tag. That means you can't right-click and do 'save image', but like others say, if it appears on screen, it can be saved."
One of the interesting things about Ad Block Plus is it lists "blockable" elements on a page and their complete URL. Makes it really easy to grab the images breaking the web this way.
entropyiswinning writes "We have seen a couple people download images (of artwork) and reupload them to their own facebook pages with no attribution... I have no idea why."
Does facebook allow uploaders to remove images? If so preventing links from going bad at the uploader's whim is a common reason.
posted by Mitheral at 11:32 PM on April 3, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by lettuchi at 11:05 AM on April 2, 2011