Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

In need of security advice ...

<< < (5/5)

JavaJones:
Is it really necessary that full size or even "large" images be put up? The vast, vast majority of images most photographers (and other artists) put up online are very reduced in size. Even something like 1280x1024, while plenty large for near full screen viewing by most systems, is still a far cry from original native resolution of average digital cameras today (where files are often 2-3000 pixels wide). Not to mention the slight quality reduction of JPG compression. So if your concern is *offline* use (e.g. printing) or other purposes where high resolution originals are needed, then just put only downsampled pictures up. For my photoblog, for example, I tend to only put up about 800x600: http://photoblog.oshyan.com
Smaller than some people might desire, but big enough IMHO to enjoy and critique for composition, color, and even detail. Watermarks are more intrusive, I find.

Ultimately, as others have said, there will be no way to prevent some people from reusing the content. The question is where do you draw the line. Low(er) resolution pictures are one good approach that has really no work-around for would-be thieves. But it won't stop online-oriented image theft or those who don't care about low resolution images. For that a simple right-click protection script might be worthwhile. Yes, it will not protect against everyone and every type of attack, but it will prevent *casual piracy* which I think is all that is ever worthwhile. Most piracy of this type is in fact committed unknowingly (i.e. the thief doesn't really know or recognize that what they're doing is actually illegal; trust me, I know tons of people who do or have done this and have had to educate many about it, it's seldom malicious).

Another thing you might want to consider, if the "click to enlarge" thing is causing issues with protection scripts, is not bothering with that extra step. Why not just embed the largest size image in the page? Look at how my Photoblog is done. If the image is the central focus, it shouldn't require a click to be viewed. You can have information at the bottom quite easily, along with the option for people to add comments. Wordpress is designed as a text blogging solution so its focus is naturally on text, not images. If the focus *is* intended to be on images, consider a photoblogging solution like PixelPost: http://www.pixelpost.org/

If not that, then I would also highly recommend SmugMug if a hosted solution is desired. It's not free, like Flickr and others, but it has a way better gallery interface, much more power and control, no (or few) limitations (depending on account level), and for Pro accounts there are lots of options for selling photos. Regarding the size issue, you can also very flexibly and powerfully control what sizes different levels of viewing permissions get to see, so for example anonymous users (those without a password) would see only small size images, people with passwords would see larger but not original size, and she could have the originals up for e.g. commercial use (sell prints or digital originals) or for her own archival or other purposes, yet no one else would ever have access to them (without paying). The system takes care of all the resizing and security.

- Oshyan

Renegade:
Yes but from a pragmatic point of view is SmugMug not the optimal solution? I have no "Pro" account and only know them as being "highly recommended" as a the choice for serious pixel sharing - when Flickr, Picasa are not sufficient. They target people just like her so why are they not good enough?
-Bamse (January 02, 2011, 03:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'd say go for it. But just do so understanding the security implications and not setting expectations too high. Good enough is good enough. At some point you just need to get it done and move on. If it's working for other people, there's no reason why it shouldn't work for you and your daughter.

Renegade:
I've been buying up a bunch of artwork lately, and came across some protected images on what's actually an excellent site.

Well, I wanted to check to see how some edits would look on it before buying... 10 seconds later I had the image without a screenshot (from source). (I was surprised when I got it with no watermark.)

Anyways, just one of those things -- you can't really protect pics on the Internet.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page