Blocking "Print Screen" function
pgwelch
Registered Users Posts: 14 Big grins
Is there a way to prevent someone from stealing images by using the "Print Screen" function and then pasteing to an image editing program?
Patrick G. Welch
http://www.pgwelchphotography.com
Patrick G. Welch
http://www.pgwelchphotography.com
0
Comments
You can watermark your images and/or you can limit the maximum size that can be displayed on the web to something that no reasonable print can be made from.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
In my job we don't use the print screen function to do screenshots anymore.
Note that I wonder how legal it would be if we were to find some day a system that would limit the capacity of a computer.
About louloupix
Other than watermarking your images to be useless for uses you do not want to allow and restricting the sizes photos are available in (which will also ruin their display-quality/size on big screens), there is nothing you can do. The right-click-protection in place at SM is, at best, a minor hindrance to anybody determined to obtain your images on display; it takes a semi-skilled web-surfer about 15 seconds to circumvent it, and I can teach anybody to do it in about 5 minutes.
Another thing you should make sure is to populate the IPTC metadata for your pictures so that copyright information is embedded and easily searchable; this does not help in preventing theft, but can help track it down, if you choose to put enough energy into that.
The only advice I can give is to either not worry about it, or not to display pictures online. Those are the two choices. There are no others, and anybody who claims there is a third choice is trying to sell you snake-oil.
In any case, good luck with whatever you decide :-)
So restricting image size causes ... small images, not poor quality - exactly what is intended.
And, a tastefully done watermark can be used quite effectively if protection is really needed. It has to be semi-transparent, small and in several places in the photo.
Unless you are selling your images for a profit as an important business, then I think most people worry too much about image theft. Your primary goal should be to share the images with your audience and if you aren't in a business selling the images, an occasional theft costs you nothing while protecting from the theft costs your intended viewers a lot. Even when you are in a business, you have to balance the actual loss of revenue from theft (most people who go out of their way to steal probably wouldn't have purchased anyway) vs. the loss of revenue from interfering with the viewing experience by putting draconian anti-theft measures in place. Everyone should realize it is a trade-off. Revenue will probably be maximized at the point where the viewing experience is pretty good, but there is still some theft and stopping all theft will interfere with the viewing experience enough that revenue will actually be reduced.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Thanks to everyone for the responses. I do realize that there are no absolutes when dealing with computers and the people who really want something for free. I love SmugMug, but occasionally I do find minor annoyances. A friend of mine who has bought pictures from me, clued me in the print screen trick. I have been using all of the SmugMug protection options since I became a member. No-right-click, watermark and image size limitations. However I am now moving the watermark from the bottom to the middle of the image.
Thank you for the reply. It has brought up another question though. You said to EMBED the IPTC metadata. I do update the IPTC metadata during my post processing. Photographer, date, location, GPS, address, website, and copyright notice is included. I do all of this in Adobe Bridge. Is the IPTC metadata EMBEDDED or just attached? When I hear EMBEDDED I think that it is somehow actually part of the picture and cannot be separated no matter what is done with the file. If the print screen is you used to capture the screen image and then pasted into an image editor, isn't the IPTC data lost? Can the IPTC data be Embedded in such a way that it can be recovered by some sort of software? I know there is a program for digital watermarking, but it is very cost prohibitive. I do know that if someone wants something for free bad enough, they will get it. I just want to know that I am doing everything I can to deter theft and unauthorized use. Deterrents are to keep honest people honest and slow down the dishonest. Thanks once again for the information.
Even if there was a way to block Print-Screen (and other screen grabbers), the image file will still be in your browser cache. If someone was determined enough, they could fish it out of there.
IPTC metadata can always be removed or overwritten; it is merely "attached". Even if it were a digital watermark, it could be foiled (if the attacker knows such a watermark exists).
Printscreen will remove IPTC metadata as well, yes. However if you use browser trickery (or simply a browser without JavaScript enabled) to get at the jpeg being displayed, you'd also get the IPTC metadata with it -- and most thieves being none too bright often do not remove it.
Personally I look at anti-theft measures a little differently than you; So long as they do not impact the experience my intended audience has negatively, they are alright; once my intended audience has to go through hoops or gets annoyed by the measure, it has, in my eyes, failed. Right-click-"protection" fails this test in my opinion, since there are legitimate uses for wanting to open a picture in a separate browser window; centered, visible watermarks annoy me to no end -- so I would assume they'd annoy visitors as well. I understand the reasoning behind using them, I just don't agree with it
Maybe I am misjudging the problem and image theft is a much bigger one than I think it is.
@jfriend: Correct, they are not being autoscaled from smaller sizes to bigger ones; though a small picture on a large screen when an alternative is available does not seem high-quality to me. Maybe that's just the way I'm wired ...