Printing pages from web sites.

[Kurt Knoll]

I am using Front Page 2003. And I have a lot of photographs on my web site.
Found out some people are printing them out while online and re distributing
them. Is there a way I can include a code on this pages so they can not
print out this pages.

Kurt Knoll
Photographs of the Canadian Northwest

 

[L Covey]

I am using Front Page 2003. And I have a lot of photographs on my web site.
Found out some people are printing them out while online and re distributing
them. Is there a way I can include a code on this pages so they can not
print out this pages.

Kurt Knoll
Photographs of the Canadian Northwest

I am not an expert on code, so I would think someone else will respond
on that.

An instructor of websites once told our class that once we put out the
photos, there is no sure method to keep people from using them.

Not that they should, however.

LC

 

[Kurt Knoll]

I came along some web sties where I could not save the page. Because it said
saving the page is restricted.

Kurt Knoll.

 

[L Covey]

There are ways to get around that, though.

LC

I came along some web sties where I could not save the page. Because it said
saving the page is restricted.

Kurt Knoll.

 

[DanR]

There are ways to get around that, though.

Alt Print Screen will capture current window to the clip board. Any image
editor can then open that image and user can crop out all but the picture
and do what ever with it.

 

[Geoff]

There must be some way though, It should be possible, it is certainly
desirable to be able to prevent copying. At present there are web
publishers who might like to provide the super quality that they have
captured as photographs or that are scans of paintings but are
inhibited to do so because people can download them to print on their
own printer rather than pay for the photo from the website. The
argument is discussed on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
showthread.php?t=29833

I have thought of using digimarc, at least to protect copyright. The
full service will trace images that are republished as well. The
problem is that it is very expensive, requires an annual subscription,
and can only be considered by a succesfull professional photographer
or artist or a web hosting service that publishes high quality work.

I have Watermark Factory that can be used to add a lot of information
to your images but doesn't trace unauthorised republishing.

 

[DanR]

There must be some way though, It should be possible, it is certainly
desirable to be able to prevent copying. At present there are web
publishers who might like to provide the super quality that they have
captured as photographs or that are scans of paintings but are
inhibited to do so because people can download them to print on their
own printer rather than pay for the photo from the website. The
argument is discussed on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
showthread.php?t=29833

I have thought of using digimarc, at least to protect copyright. The
full service will trace images that are republished as well. The
problem is that it is very expensive, requires an annual subscription,
and can only be considered by a succesfull professional photographer
or artist or a web hosting service that publishes high quality work.

I have Watermark Factory that can be used to add a lot of information
to your images but doesn't trace unauthorised republishing.

The method I described will only capture what can be displayed on the screen
at a given time. Therefore the person copying is limited by the resolution
of their display. If their display is 1280x1024 for example... and your
picture is of a greater resolution than that... then the copycat can not
capture your picture at its native resolution. But... they could capture the
high res picture in segments and paste it together. Another but... but why
would someone post a picture at a higher resolution than most people could
display.
.... I seem to be debating myself...

 

[Geoff]

I have visited Kurt's website. Its a bit jazzy and I'd prefer not to
hear the music. But a lot of the photographs are superb and I can
understand why people might like to download and print copies. They
shouldn't republish them though.

Dan, I have some photographs that are probably too large to display on
some users monitors. The intention of the website though is to
impress visitors with the beauty of the countryside and therefore,
even if the photos are downloaded, and printed without permission, it
is part of the price of conveying an important message. I am limiting
my audience to those users who are using at least a resolution of 1024
x 768 and a display that is not smaller than 15 inches.

There is a general problem with publishing photographs and artistic
images on the Internet and that is that either the publisher is
prepared to sacrifice the quality of the published work as seen by the
user, or not. If the publisher decides that he or she would prefer
that users do see the work in the highest quality then they must be
prepared, apparently, for someone to copy their work without
permission.

Alternatively they could set up their website so that their highest
resolution images are available for a payment and access to their work
is made through completing a form. A selected crop of a full
resolution image could be made available so that users could see for
themselves what the photograph really looks like. I have done this on
the page entitled Autumn Magic on www.freshfordmill.co.uk - but
without setting up a payment facility. I have just included a complete
photo that cannot be really appreciated on the Internet and a full
size detail -that still needs to be scrolled vertically on a 15 inch
display.

If the Canadian Northwest were to be under threat from development
then Kurt's photos published at their highest resolution would be
extremely important in helping to shape public opinion.

 

[DanR]

I have visited Kurt's website. Its a bit jazzy and I'd prefer not to
hear the music. But a lot of the photographs are superb and I can
understand why people might like to download and print copies. They
shouldn't republish them though.

Dan, I have some photographs that are probably too large to display on
some users monitors. The intention of the website though is to
impress visitors with the beauty of the countryside and therefore,
even if the photos are downloaded, and printed without permission, it
is part of the price of conveying an important message. I am limiting
my audience to those users who are using at least a resolution of 1024
x 768 and a display that is not smaller than 15 inches.

There is a general problem with publishing photographs and artistic
images on the Internet and that is that either the publisher is
prepared to sacrifice the quality of the published work as seen by the
user, or not. If the publisher decides that he or she would prefer
that users do see the work in the highest quality then they must be
prepared, apparently, for someone to copy their work without
permission.

Alternatively they could set up their website so that their highest
resolution images are available for a payment and access to their work
is made through completing a form. A selected crop of a full
resolution image could be made available so that users could see for
themselves what the photograph really looks like. I have done this on
the page entitled Autumn Magic on www.freshfordmill.co.uk - but
without setting up a payment facility. I have just included a complete
photo that cannot be really appreciated on the Internet and a full
size detail -that still needs to be scrolled vertically on a 15 inch
display.

If the Canadian Northwest were to be under threat from development
then Kurt's photos published at their highest resolution would be
extremely important in helping to shape public opinion.

I took a look at your site and it looks very nice. Displays well on both my
17 and 22 wide LCD monitors.
Keep in mind that the physical size of any monitor has nothing to do with
how much image it can display. Even a 13 inch monitor could display the
entire Autumn Magic image if its resolution were high enough.
Just for kicks I downloaded the Autumn Magic picture and loaded it into
Photoshop Elements 4. I applied the 'auto levels' function to the picture
and I thought it improved the image a bit. Un-doing and re-doing it seems to
remove a bit of green caste in the shadows. I did see where you said the
image was "un-retouched".
And... sticking the large copyright notice in the middle of the image will
prevent people from unauthorized use of your photographs. Especially if you
put it in an area that can not be Photoshopped cloned.

 

[Tom Miller]

"> Alternatively they could set up their website so that their highest

resolution images are available for a payment and access to their work
is made through completing a form. A selected crop of a full
resolution image could be made available so that users could see for
themselves what the photograph really looks like.

I like the idea of thumb-nail images and slightly larger ones to allow them
to see more details. The production version for pay can be setup for
downloading, not displaying from the website.

Your now talking e-commerce. You first need to decide how many you want to
charge for. There are small e-commerce solutions that don't scale easily
and there are very large solutions that scale as high as you need. There
are a number of ways to do this within FP. But often the solution is to use
an external to you website/host to provide the credit-card processing and
downloading while running the rest of the website on your preferred host.

Microsoft used to host a small/mid-range solution called "B Central" I don't
know what it is named now. Penpal can provide small end solutions fairly
easily. If you want to scale up and still use FP you should look at someone
like LeGarde (sp) or one of the other larger vendors.

If your inventory is fairly static you can create a page per picture. But
if your inventory is not static or plans to grow you really need a database
type solution.

Tom

 

[Kurt Knoll]

I basically solved the problem. Installed a program imagecut. It cuts the
image in sections and then creates an HTML file.

Kurt Knoll.

 

[Kurt Knoll]

I did install a new program called Imagecut. It cuts the images in segments
and creates an HTML file Works great for me. Anyone who tries to download
using the eight mouse button only gets one section at time..
Kurt Knoll
www.kurtknoll.com

 

[Geoff]

I did install a new program called Imagecut. It cuts the images in segments
and creates an HTML file Works great for me. Anyone who tries to download
using the eight mouse button only gets one section at time..










- Show quoted text -

Hi Kurt,
sounds good to me. The only way that anyone could synthesize your
photos would be to stick them together! which I presume would not be
feasible if the photo was cut into a dozen or so pieces. Unless the
miscreant is a jigsaw expert! Can the image be re-synthesized by
anyone who has the software?
geoff

 

[L Covey]

I just visited your website: www.kurtknoll.com. Not sure if this is
the one with the software program you are referring to, but I tried to
save as a couple of photos to get an idea of this "puzzle" software, and
the photos were easily copied in one piece.

Maybe I misunderstood something. I am not attempting to copy your
photos for my personal gain, just to try to visualize your new
software--how it affects the photos.

LC

 

[Kurt Knoll]

Sorry about that . I have not be able to redo all my images jet.
at www.kurtknoll.com/birds2b.html the first image in the center top ==
www.kurtknoll.com/eaglesplit.html is in sections

Kurt knoll

(e-mail address removed)

==

 

[L Covey]

I see now! Quite effective.

Is the name of the software, Imagecut? Who is the manufacturer?

LC

 

[L Covey]

P.S. Can a person have straight edges on the photos or do all have the
"jazzed" edges?

LC

 

[Kurt Knoll]

Look it up at plimus.com

kurt knoll
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Kurt Knoll]

It does not matter it just looks at whole picture and cuts it in square
sections you select how many.

Kurt Knoll.

 

[Geoff]

It does not matter it just looks at whole picture and cuts it in square
sections you select how many.

Kurt Knoll.






- Show quoted text -

Hi Kurt,

I tried with the eagles and it only printed one piece, so thats it
then, right clicking only allows one piece to be printed, the example
can't be printed by printing four times as the pieces seem to be
randomly selected. I printed five times and got two pairs of
duplicates but still needed another piece to make the picture
complete. Given that the number of cuts can be set higher it seems the
problems sorted!

Geoff