Photo websites/blog/showcases

I’ve recently been invited to show/share some of my pix/photo stories on a newish website for photographers. It looks good and seems very professional and I’m not averse to a bit of self promotion. Of course there’s no money in it for the photogs, only exposure. But exposure comes in many forms, not necessarily what you want. I guess the site gets some sort of income from attached ads. However, the images I’ve seen don’t seem to have any encription so what concerns me is having my images exposed to internet theft. These sorts of sites seem quite common and I wonder what other photogs think about the image piracy risks.

by Nigel Amies at 2013-01-22 15:11:40 UTC | Bookmark | | Report spam→

The images from your galleries can be pirated right here on LS.

by Barry Milyovsky | 22 Jan 2013 17:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

Hi Nigel, I also recently received an email inviting me to share work on a photography blog for exposure (no $ involved for either party). I haven’t yet made a decision as to participate or not, and I agree, your concerns are certainly valid. I figured it was a scam at first, but it does seem fairly legit I suppose. Good luck on making your decision.

by Daniel Brennan | 23 Jan 2013 03:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

It’s probably the same blog Daniel. As for images on LS being pirated then what’s the point of the encription?

by Nigel Amies | 23 Jan 2013 09:01 | Ludwigsburg, Germany | | Report spam→

Nigel, I don’t know anything about encryption on LS nor am I particularly adept at the use of computers but I do know that if you go to someone’s gallery on LS and control click on one of the images you are then given the option to download the image to your computer.

by Barry Milyovsky | 23 Jan 2013 14:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

Truth is, unless you watermark heavily, for web uses it’s just as simple as making a screen capture. The only real protection is watermarking, as annoying as it is in terms of aesthethics.

by Patricio Murphy | 23 Jan 2013 19:01 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→

Patricio, I am surprised there isn’t a watermark removal app.

by Barry Milyovsky | 26 Jan 2013 19:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

Barry, I’m pretty sure someone somewhere might be working on something like that as we speak! :P

by Patricio Murphy | 27 Jan 2013 00:01 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→

Barry,

Since Photoshop CS5 it is easy to remove watermarks. I don’t put any. As someone said in a Photo Shelter webinar: “If you don’t want your photos to be steal, don’t post them to internet.”

by Yves Choquette | 28 Jan 2013 02:01 | Montreal, Canada, Canada | | Report spam→

Ah, Yves— so Patricio was right; someone has been working on it.

by Barry Milyovsky | 28 Jan 2013 03:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

Yep, they’ve been working on it, but if you place something liks what AP does, they can still steal it, they can probably even be able to remove it to some extent, but it will involve much work than most are willing to do. Unfortunately that means lacing an annoying watermark, but right now it’s the only way to have some sort of protection.

by Patricio Murphy | 28 Jan 2013 12:01 | Buenos Aires, Argentina | | Report spam→

Just catching up on these comments and having checked my images here on LS it seems the supposed ‘encription’ LS logo that existed previously and that I innocently assumed was functional is no longer there and was anyway, according to the comments above, totally ineffective. So it seems all you can do practically is make sure images posted online are of such a low resolution they can barely be seen. And some smart ass geek will probably take great pleasure in finding a way around that too.

by Nigel Amies | 04 Feb 2013 09:02 | Ludwigsburg, Germany | | Report spam→