Image copyright solution

[The Roman]

Hi all ! Ok, this message is not for asking for something to anyone but just to give you something of mine...

How make to respect images copyright on your web site?

The taken actions from a user can be:

- download the web page where is nested the image (using the browser-->File-->Save As...);

- take a screen-shot;

- consult its computer looking for the cache directory (for example Temporary Internet Files);

- print the image;

- execute the entire path going straight to the folder where images are contained visualizing an image in itself

A lot of developers over the web are trying to work around in order to get a goal, someone seems deprived of hope because if the user wants he will catch our image, someone else is convinced that with a couple of line code the problem is solved...

Now guys, I'm sorry but for professional reasons I'm not going to show you pieces of code giving the package in your hands, but I have THE RIGHT SOLUTION IN ORDER TO HAVE AN IMAGE DISPLAYED ON A WEB SITE AND THAT'S IT! All user taken actions mentioned above are 100% covered. Nobody will have a material copy of the image on its local computer unless the author wants to sell it.
What I can do is explain in few steps the theoretical way, which is a tested way on the practical side, trust to me. Even if could seem simple as counting 1 - 2 - 3 I have taken a year studing for this technique:

NOTE: the used technology are Internet Information Server, Active Server Pages, Java Script, Flash. The application cannot be corrupted and works perfect for technical reason only under Microsoft Internet Explorer Browser (all versions) and even if the web page will be saved on the local computer, no images are stored/saved.


insert every single image (.jpg, .gif, ecc.) inside many swf files
set IIS in order to lock the cache and to avoid read access on the specific folder containing the swf files
on the web page write the code to: 1) check if user using I.E. otherwise let him know to get the required browser for your site; 2) visualize the swf file; 3) disable screen-shoot; 4) disable print the page


Bye!
Mauro, a guy from Rome


.

[ddadmin]

Wow talk about total overkill, no offense. :) Bottom line, if the visitor can see your image, he/she can grab it.

[Twey]

Still not a perfect solution. The user can grab the URL from your web page, save the SWF file, decompile the SWF file (there are several free tools to do so out there), and grab the image.

You've made your site dependent on Flash and, worse, IE, for no reason at all. People not using IE will be expelled from your site -- and IE isn't even cross-platform, so you'd be trying to make Windows users spend in excess of $70 (I can't remember the exact price these days, but it's something outrageous) for an closed-source, insecure, crash-prone excuse for an operating system so they can run a closed-source, insecure, crash-prone excuse for a browser, just so they can view your site, and the icing on the cake is that it doesn't actually protect anything anyway.

I don't think people will flock to this one, I'm afraid. :)

[benslayton]

I'll have to stick with DDadmin on this one. B/C, well let's say, for instance Google done this well all you would have to do is open another browser. Move it down, so it's not covering the Picture, then whoollaa take a screen shot.

Look, see for yourself....

http://static.flickr.com/50/152119571_0614351809.jpg?v=0

[Twey]

"Whoollaa?" :)

[djr33]

Not a chance that'll stop people.
turn off javascript.. and you can get the image. Or, do what twey says.
is javascript checked and must be on?


Anyway... please link... i'd love to get around it.


btw, disabling screencaps doesn't work on macs. You lose :p

[The Roman]

Ei guys, I just tested my application in all the ways you are telling me (this is another reason because I posted my message) and ops... djr33 is right... stupidly I didn't think to the easiest idea: disabling Java Script the screen shot+print page works without any code barries.
Except this point the application still cannot be corrupted: using I.E. is a limitation I am aware of this and to me it's fine, it is not the end of the world; going to Save as... the html it is saved on the local computer but not the swf file; going to execute addresses like www.mysite.com/images/myimage.swf will not work and IIS will tell you that read access is denied; going to Google site window under the application window doesn't work.

Now yes I have a question: there is a code way (maybe asp) to disable print screen+print page ? Or I can stop the user to disable Java Script from its browser? Can I disable print screen+print page through IIS ? Even if I would prefer a code solution or a possible setting of IIS, exist an additional software that can be installed on IIS in order to lock 100% print screen+print page?

Thank you in advance friends

[djr33]

There is NO way, no matter what you do, do stop people from saving your images.

Now, on a purely theoretical quest, sure... there are some ways to do some of what you're saying.

No, asp (and php) and other server side languages won't do a thing about print screen. that's a server side code.
the prnt scrn key is very nice on windows... not sure exactly where it operates, but it's certainly at a lower level (or within) explorer.exe (the main part of the system you see... folders, IE as well, etc).
You will have a lot of trouble getting it disabled.
One thing I thought of was making the user be required to hold down a key to see the image.. "if spacebar, then show image"... because spacebar+prntscrn doesn't do anything... IF that even works.
But that's totally annoying to the users. AND it wouldn't be too compatible, I wouldn't think.

The other thing to do isn't to force javascript, but to not let them in if they don't have JS.
Just run a check to see if they have js running/working. That's how the content should be shown. If JS isn't running, they will get a blank, and maybe a "you need js" error message.


Flash can be decompiled as Twey said. Anything a visitor sees is also stored somewhere on his computer... flash isn't steaming in any way that I know of.

Also, note what I said above... there will never be a way to disable screen capture functionality on macs. They'll get right around it.


In the end, you can make a mess and people will just go away 'cause it's so hard to access the "preview"
or you can let people save
or you can put some security to limit saving
or you can not supply them with the image in the first place:
1. Don't show them anything. That WILL keep it safe. If you show them, they can save it. Really.
2. Show them a small preview... who cares about a thumbnail size image.
3. Put a big ugly watermark on it. They can still see the image, but it's ugly for use without them buying the real one.
4. This IS WHY WE HAVE COPYRIGHT! just.... go with it. If they use it illegally, sue them... there are laws for this reason.


Again, go ahead and link and we can find numerous ways around saving the image. I'm curious to try if you've got a link.

[mwinter]

There is NO way, no matter what you do, do stop people from saving your images.Then why are you entertaining this madness?


Now, on a purely theoretical quest, sure... there are some ways to do some of what you're saying.Oh, sure, if you want to reject a substantial number of potential visitors, and piss off the remaining ones. :rolleyes:


The other thing to do isn't to force javascript, but to not let them in if they don't have JS.Oh, for goodness sake! What on Earth possessed you to suggest something as stupid as that? :mad:


Just run a check to see if they have js running/working. That's how the content should be shown. If JS isn't running, they will get a blank, and maybe a "you need js" error message.So then the user will give you the finger and go elsewhere. Good plan! Search engines may also think the site a waste of effort and not both to index it.

Mike

[The Roman]

All right djr33 I think you let me make a jump...because now the checks are:

- user is not using I.E.? --> do not display image
- user is not using Java Script? --> do not display image

by the way I have always known that swf file can be decompiled, but I repeat that in this case the user can only display the swf file, not save either the browser can't cache somewhere on user's computer (remember?...disable the cache directly from IIS). About Mac... I could check no print-screen Java Script function (that it is write only for windows system), if it fails do not display image. So now I have another limitation... and to me it is still fine:

The Image Copyright Solution can works 100% only under I.E. browser+Windows Operating System (doesn't mean that it can be tricked with different Browser or O.S.)

P.S.: for now I can't punt the link to the application

Thanks man

[The Roman]

Ehm... another doubt... I have felt to say that with Telnet it is possible take the images from the web site... what does mean, it is true? Should need username and password to do that?

[Twey]

All right djr33 I think you let me make a jump...because now the checks are:

- user is not using I.E.? --> do not display image
- user is not using Java Script? --> do not display image
While you're at it, why don't you just remove the image entirely? You seem to be heading this way anyway, and it's the only real way to stop people getting hold of it.

by the way I have always known that swf file can be decompiled, but I repeat that in this case the user can only display the swf file, not save either the browser can't cache somewhere on user's computer (remember?...disable the cache directly from IIS).Rubbish. Firstly, cache disabling is a request, not a command; the browser could easily be configured to ignore it. Secondly, the data still has to be downloaded at some point. This means that somebody could still just grab the URL from your webpage and go and download the ruddy thing.
About Mac... I could check no print-screen Java Script function (that it is write only for windows system), if it fails do not display image. So now I have another limitation... and to me it is still fine:Well, to any sane person, who wants to uphold the standards of platform compatibility and general decency on the Web, cutting out all (not just some, but *all*) of your potential users not running a specific browser and operating system, with a particular setting enabled and a particular plugin installed, is far from fine. If you were running a service purely for Windows users, that's acceptable (Windows Update, for example); however, when you're trying to create a webpage with information that is useful to everyone, that's a very stupid idea.
The Image Copyright Solution can works 100% only under I.E. browser+Windows Operating System (doesn't mean that it can be tricked with different Browser or O.S.)I can download Windows Updates using Firefox on Linux. You think you're better at this than Microsoft?
P.S.: for now I can't punt the link to the applicationTell us when you have, so we can get past whatever you've done in thirty seconds and then laugh at it.
Ehm... another doubt... I have felt to say that with Telnet it is possible take the images from the web site... what does mean, it is true? Should need username and password to do that?Yes, but all telnet would be doing in this case is acting as a primitive HTTP client. Anything that could be done with it acting in such a capacity could be done with any other HTTP client as well, such as a web browser. Username and password are not necessary, unless they are necessary to view the image normally.

[djr33]

I agree with Twey.

I think the biggest falacy here is this:


(doesn't mean that it can be tricked with different Browser or O.S.)
You have to think about "the enemy".
You are trying to protect your images... from who?
You have a ton of advanced coding stopping -- let's call them for lack of a better term: -- hackers.
And yet, you have a security hole here.

What you are doing is causing an incredible number of incompatibility issues and difficulties for the users who just want to do what you want... preview the image, then buy it, or whatever.
And, you are admitting that hackers can still get around your protection.

Meaning:
1. Hard for the "good" people.
2. Still not secure for the "bad" people.

How does this help anything?


No offense... it just isn't gonna work. You obviously feel like there's something incredibly important about your images... but you need to decide.
Why can't you just do what I suggested and display a watermark or a thumbnail instead of the actual image?




You think you're better at this than Microsoft?
Wonderful point. Obviously companies that have more resources than you have tried this. They don't want their content stolen.
Why don't they have protection? ...'cause it can't exist... just the way the web works.

The closest example to a protected file I can think of is google video. It's its own format... not compatible. Good for security, bad for compatibility.
AND if you know what you're doing, it's still possible to extract it, with a system sound recording application and a video screen capture utility, if nothing else.

If they can't do it, why do you think you can?
Don't get me wrong... if you could do it, that would be cool (though bad for the users, it's a good/bad thing.. depending on what position you are in), but it just can't work.



P.S.: for now I can't punt the link to the applicationAs Twey said, please link to something. Think of it this way... we get around it, tell you how we did and you can know what you need to "fix". Right?


Umm... sure, you could use username and password, but isn't this against the point of giving a free preview?



What's your goal? Do you have secret images you don't want public?
Or do you have images you're trying to sell and want to give previews of?

I think it's the second one... that's what I've been assuming for a while.. tell me if I'm wrong.

As for the first.... then JUST DON'T PUT THEM ON YOUR SITE.
That's like asking how to put your password on your website so that no one can see it... just asking for trouble.

[The Roman]

Guys I'm sorry maybe I had an energetic tone to expose my ideas, but please don't get me wrong, here we are all competent people speaking about a supposed solution to help each other. I accept your precious suggestions and I'm glad to know that there are friends like you with the same passion.

[Twey]

But the solution is impossible, and this has been argued to death in many other threads on this forum, always with the same result. It's a costly and pointless venture.

[djr33]

I'm curious. But it's just funny that people seem to think they can stop people from saving an image.
you GIVE them the image so they can see it. You can't take it back.

Yet another example of:
1. Confusing the "good" viewers.
2. Not hindering the "bad" viewers (hackers, etc.).


But... sure, carry on.
Just... please link to the site and we can show you what's wrong that you should fix.
If you don't believe us know, you will later...

[BLiZZaRD]

I am going to do this. I am going to have a photo on my site and make it impossible to get. The image will be full size, and stored locally on my server and I will make it impossible to capture. Then I will patent my methods and sell them for BILLIONS!

I will be the smartest man alive!!!!!!!!

Cause let's face it.. that is what all of this is really about. It is NOT about having YOUR photos unattainable, its the idea of being the one that finds out HOW and selling it to MS so they can protect THEIR content meanwhile you go to the bank with a smile and a wet spot in your pants.

http://www.cleverwasteoftime.com/forum/Smileys/smiles/lmmfao.gif

[djr33]

Haha, indeed. I've had the same impulse, but I can't come up with any way to stop people from using prnt scrn.

EVEN if you could stop use of the key, a video capture utility running in the background would get around any setup you could possibly have, short of one that was actually so powerful it would invade your computer and shut down all other tasks. Nice site, eh? :p

The only thing i've ever found to work like this is some QT movies (and some wmv ones too) go directly to video memory or some such. Then you can't do a screen capture... just a black hole where the image was.
you can, however, get the image by opening it in QT and copying the frame from there.
As such, that's not a perfect solution, but at least approaches something...

[BLiZZaRD]

You know, I was joking, but semi-serious at the same time. I mean I won't be able to do it (Twey could attest, I can't even get a time script to work right, LOL)

But SOMEONE will be able to one day, and I just hope against hope they are an Open Source user, and have the heart to SHARE instead of SELL, I mean, sure, make your fortune, but others will pay too, keep it away from M$ at first, that would be grand!

[Twey]

But SOMEONE will be able to one dayNot unless they quite drastically redesign the Web :) The very nature of the WWW makes this impossible.
The only thing i've ever found to work like this is some QT movies (and some wmv ones too) go directly to video memory or some such. Then you can't do a screen capture... just a black hole where the image was.Doesn't work on anything except Windows. Shouldn't even work on Windows, but it seems Microsoft designed their screen-capture utility with customary incompetence.

Besides, everyone's forgetting that one can just intercept the packets before they even reach the browser...

[djr33]

but it seems Microsoft designed their screen-capture utility with customary incompetence.
Haha.

Yeah, macs get right around that.


Well.... fun logic puzzle.