Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Preventing Rip-Off of My Photos on DVDs

Reply
Thread Tools

Preventing Rip-Off of My Photos on DVDs

 
 
One4All
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2006
I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
enjoyment & partly for my own ego.

Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.

What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
their format & file size, could use them for their own gain. I know
they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
magazines, art prints, etc.)?

Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
print purposes?

My system is Macintosh G5, OS 10.3.9 (Panther). If more info needed,
let me know.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2006
One4All writes:

> I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
> share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
> highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
> think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
> enjoyment & partly for my own ego.
>
> Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
> may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
> registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
> cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.
>
> What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
> their format & file size, could use them for their own gain.


Yes. Not necessarily legally, but in practical terms, they could
certainly do so.

> I know they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
> they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
> magazines, art prints, etc.)?


It depends on the standards of the person using them. Even very tiny
photos can be used on posters if the person producing the poster is
satisfied with the result. A lot of really bad images are used to
make money. I've seen large 8x10 postcards that had very visible
artifacts showing that the original image was of low resolution--and
yet they still made money.

> Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
> a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
> print purposes?


There isn't any. The risk of it being used in print is always there.

One of the drawbacks to having photos in digital form is that it's
very easy to use them for almost anything. Paper prints are hard to
reproduce without large losses in quality, but with digital files you
can do anything.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2006
On 14 Jun 2006 15:42:42 -0700, One4All <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
> share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
> highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
> think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
> enjoyment & partly for my own ego.
>
> Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
> may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
> registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
> cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.
>
> What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
> their format & file size, could use them for their own gain. I know
> they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
> they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
> magazines, art prints, etc.)?
>
> Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
> a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
> print purposes?


Unless you're talking about HDTV sets, a TV is pretty low resolution.
Downsample to 800x600, more than enough for standard TV (and reasonable
for a computer monitor). Even at 4x6, that's not going to be a very good
print.

You probably could even go as low as 640x480.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dmac
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2006
Mxsmanic wrote:
> One4All writes:
>
>
>>I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
>>share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
>>highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
>>think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
>>enjoyment & partly for my own ego.
>>
>>Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
>>may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
>>registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
>>cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.
>>
>>What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
>>their format & file size, could use them for their own gain.

>
>
> Yes. Not necessarily legally, but in practical terms, they could
> certainly do so.
>
>
>>I know they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
>>they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
>>magazines, art prints, etc.)?

>
>
> It depends on the standards of the person using them. Even very tiny
> photos can be used on posters if the person producing the poster is
> satisfied with the result. A lot of really bad images are used to
> make money. I've seen large 8x10 postcards that had very visible
> artifacts showing that the original image was of low resolution--and
> yet they still made money.
>
>
>>Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
>>a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
>>print purposes?

>
>
> There isn't any. The risk of it being used in print is always there.
>
> One of the drawbacks to having photos in digital form is that it's
> very easy to use them for almost anything. Paper prints are hard to
> reproduce without large losses in quality, but with digital files you
> can do anything.
>



Sadly have to agree with Manic here. Once you put even 640x480 images
into digital display, you have no protection against theft. Even
Internet images get stolen and put to uses you never imagined when you
decided to share your pictures.

One way to make it harder for the image thieves - those blokes with
masks, lurking in the shadows of Usenet and your friend's lounge rooms -
is to compile a slide show into an Executable file. This way it gets
seen but the images are all part of the one file which has to be reverse
engineered to get the images out of it.

Otherwise, do as I do and only put "disposable" images into digital
display or on your web site and the rest distribute only on canvas which
poses substantial hurdles for image thieves to copy.

--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stewy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"One4All" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
> share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
> highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
> think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
> enjoyment & partly for my own ego.
>
> Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
> may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
> registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
> cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.
>
> What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
> their format & file size, could use them for their own gain. I know
> they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
> they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
> magazines, art prints, etc.)?
>
> Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
> a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
> print purposes?
>
> My system is Macintosh G5, OS 10.3.9 (Panther). If more info needed,
> let me know.


Exactly what do you expect these potential felons to do with your
pictures? My guess is most people will skim the disc once then toss it
in a drawer (if you're lucky) or toss it in the garbage (if you're not)
- the latter would mean the general population will get access to your
marketable pics (that you haven't actually made money on...yet)

Format pictures to monitor resolution 1024x768 is average these days.

Add a watermark.

Use maximum compression.
 
Reply With Quote
 
One4All
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006
Thanks to all for some very good suggestions. This info is what I
needed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006
Daniel Silevitch writes:

> Unless you're talking about HDTV sets, a TV is pretty low resolution.


Even HDTV is very poor compared to still images.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006
Stewy writes:

> Exactly what do you expect these potential felons to do with your
> pictures?


Anything for which they'd normally be required to obtain permission,
presumably--resulting in a loss of revenue for the photographer.

> Add a watermark.


Watermarks won't prevent image theft, even though adding them degrades
image quality slightly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006

"Dmac" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eR0kg.9537$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> One4All writes:
>>
>>
>>>I intend to burn some DVD's of images I've taken over the years to
>>>share with family/friends. These files are in .jpg format at high (not
>>>highest) quality. The files average 1MB each. Many of these images (I
>>>think) are marketable. I want to share my best photos, partly for their
>>>enjoyment & partly for my own ego.
>>>
>>>Altho I trust my family/friends, once a DVD goes out, no telling who
>>>may have access to it and may use the images for their own gain. I've
>>>registered these images with the Copyright Center, but if the images
>>>cannot be reproduced well, that would solve the problem up front.
>>>
>>>What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
>>>their format & file size, could use them for their own gain.

>>
>>
>> Yes. Not necessarily legally, but in practical terms, they could
>> certainly do so.
>>
>>
>>>I know they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size
>>>that
>>>they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
>>>magazines, art prints, etc.)?

>>
>>
>> It depends on the standards of the person using them. Even very tiny
>> photos can be used on posters if the person producing the poster is
>> satisfied with the result. A lot of really bad images are used to
>> make money. I've seen large 8x10 postcards that had very visible
>> artifacts showing that the original image was of low resolution--and
>> yet they still made money.
>>
>>
>>>Putting it another way, what would be a sufficient file size to show on
>>>a TV screen, while preventing that file's use, due to low quality, for
>>>print purposes?

>>
>>
>> There isn't any. The risk of it being used in print is always there.
>>
>> One of the drawbacks to having photos in digital form is that it's
>> very easy to use them for almost anything. Paper prints are hard to
>> reproduce without large losses in quality, but with digital files you
>> can do anything.
>>

>
>
> Sadly have to agree with Manic here. Once you put even 640x480 images into
> digital display, you have no protection against theft. Even Internet
> images get stolen and put to uses you never imagined when you decided to
> share your pictures.
>
> One way to make it harder for the image thieves - those blokes with masks,
> lurking in the shadows of Usenet and your friend's lounge rooms - is to
> compile a slide show into an Executable file. This way it gets seen but
> the images are all part of the one file which has to be reverse engineered
> to get the images out of it.


Not actually that hard to do Doug by just about anyone.

>
> Otherwise, do as I do and only put "disposable" images into digital
> display or on your web site and the rest distribute only on canvas which
> poses substantial hurdles for image thieves to copy.
>
> --
> From Douglas...
> My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
> Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2006
"One4All" <(E-Mail Removed)> ruminated:
>What I'd like to know is whether someone who copies these files, given
>their format & file size, could use them for their own gain. I know
>they could be used on a Website, but are they of sufficient size that
>they could be used for hard-copy purposes (postcards, calendars,
>magazines, art prints, etc.)?


To allay your fears, I recommend going to a photography site
like flickr.com, to see what amazing, excellent photography
people are willing to share at reasonably high
resolution. Now, compare those photos to yours. If yours are
far superior, then you may have something to worry about. If
yours are at the same level or worse, then you really do not
have to worry about someone using your images for commercial
purposes. If they wanted to infringe on someone else's
copyrights, they could pick from a large number of photos
already available on the internet, which are far easier to
obtain and already tagged for easy search.

While i wouldn't feel great if someone were using my photos
without permission, it's not all bad, as more people would
get to see my photography, and it's not taking away money
that I would have made otherwise.

Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Converting PAL DVDs to NTSC DVDs. Wild Coyote DVD Video 14 10-27-2004 08:58 PM
Shrinking 9gb DVDs to 4.7gb DVDs fkissam DVD Video 10 01-23-2004 03:32 AM



Advertisments