Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 25, 2003, 12:45 AM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

BillDrew and others,

Fundamentally, I agree with Mike_PEAT. If you don't want anyone to have even the slimmest change to stealing something, then don't show it to anyone. That is the only guarantied way. But....

You guys didn't read the link I posted, did you?

Sure, it talks about the usual javaScript stuff. That is easy to get around. Covering the image with a transparent image to cover your actual picture was new to me (but still easy to defeat.)

But the "almost guarantied to work" systems that I was referring to requires a plug-in and doesn't send jpgs. I have never used the $400USD commercial product or read anything their web site. So I could be completely wrong.... but as programming my profession, this is how I would do it. I can only assume they think as logically as I do:

1) They send a proprietary encrypted image format that gets streamed to the browser and decrypted in the browser and displayed. (Their product can actually protect everything on your web page. I'm extending it even further by not even using jpg as the image format.)

2) When you print the page, the plug-in doesn't render it. the browser would defer to the plug-in for rendering, and it would just put up a blank panel.

3) They claim you can't take a print screen or screen capture. That is a neat trick... I'd like to see how they do that one.

4) It is never written to disk. It skips the cache completely. If not, the encrypted/binary data gets written. But I doubt it.

Sounds to me like the only "easy" way to steal it would be to take a picture of the screen with a camera.

The only computer-based thing they could try would be to use a HTTP proxy and capture the encrypted data. But of course, then you'd have to try to break the encryption and then understand the proprietary image format. This just doesn't seem worth it to steal a picture. The vast majority of people with the skill to do that wouldn't be interested in doing it. Ya, sure, it only takes one... and then the program could be made available to all. I think they'd rather spend their time cracking games and stealing something that is fun (to them) instead of breaking into a picture protection program. Sure, hackers continue to amaze me at the things they will waste their time on.... but this doesn't seem like it would be high on their list of fun hacking afternoons.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2003, 1:19 AM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212

Originally Posted by eric s
BillDrew and others,
3) They claim you can't take a print screen or screen capture. That is a neat trick... I'd like to see how they do that one.
DirectX doesn't support screen shots. If they are sending the bitmap to a DirectX surface, it is not capturable with Print Screen.
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2003, 8:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
BillDrew's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512

Originally Posted by eric s
...You guys didn't read the link I posted, did you?....
I found it interesting that the page ended with, "we do not use any special techniques, JavaScripts or programs to protect our images. Why? If someone really wants to take our images, they can."

They didn't point out that the best protection schemes work , in part, by making sure very few people will look at your images in the first place:
**) making you download a special plug-in (or do like everyone but your mother will do, go to a different site)
**) by locking out all other processes on your PC (did I hear a yowl from the Mac/Linux user over there?) Not even your mother will go back there.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2003, 3:08 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803


I thought that the requirement of a plugin made that solution impractical as well. It would only work if people already knew who you were and really wanted to look at your pictures. Or you had a contract with them so the *had* to look at them (for example, event photos.)
But it would work better than any of the other, simpler (and cheaper) solution. My point wasn't practically, it was functionality.


This product:

clames to be able to make screen shots directX based things. I know that GamesDomain.com used to use it, but their recent reviews don't seem to say "screen shots taken by Hypersnap". I know nothing about it other than that.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2003, 4:44 PM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823

m rund, it looks like your question got lost in this very interesting thread. The answer is twofold:

1) Steve reduces the size/quality of the pictures to a point where they are useable for anything except posting on the web...


2)he places the text or graphic "Steve's Digicams" over a portion of the pic that would make it difficult to remove without taking out a functional portion of the picture.

And the answer to your followup post is: most any picture editor that will allow you to place text on a photo, or one custom designed to do so, such as picture shark.
lg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2003, 8:32 AM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506

I looked at the photos on steves website and I can download any one of them to my computer. I've been known to print one or two out from time to time more as sample images. I keep track of the camera they were taken from. We do this in store. We do have cameras which to use but with such nice samples to download online done with better lighting conditions than we could ever hope to achieve in the store.

Also we do give credit for the website that took the pictures.

Example on the back of the photo it would say this.

Picture taken from Canon G2
Source by Steves-digicams.com or whatever website we download from.
Printed on canon i850 at 4800 dpi
Paper= Canon Photo paper pro

Technically since these photos have no copyright label on them they can be printed with no credit to the author. They cannot be claimed as taken by us.

So instead we could if we wanted to have this on the back of photos.

Picture taken from Canon G2
Picture printed on Epson 925 at 5760 dpi
Printed on Epson luster paper.

Although I've never printed a picture from steves website. Except for once there was a bird picture that I grabbed off the forum. I just wanted to see how it would print out. Did a good job but that print has since faded.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2003, 7:18 PM   #17
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2
Default Watermark them

You can try this free utility I coded myself:

cbr600f4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2003, 4:31 AM   #18
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162

Protecting images to pc's is no different to doing it for TV and DVD's. No system is secure unless you embed encryption technology and scrambling in the data sending device AND the display. At the display that means actually in the silicon panel drivers. Note I said 'PANEL' not tube.

If the signal can be accessed anywhere in the chain (including the RGB out rendered to your monitor!) it can be hacked and grabbed. So all this Javascript/ programme protection stuff is a load of $$$$$.

If you want to protect your images, don't post them, or as suggested, reduce res. to make them unsuitable for commercial exploitation!

Why do you think VHS recording is condoned, but heads are shaking about HD DVD?
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 PM.