Disabling photo download option?

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This question was likely asked already, but I was unable to find it answered here or in the "frequently asked questions". I found out that attached photos in posts here can be downloaded by any member of the forum. Is there a way to disable this function? I don't mind sharing photos I took in low resolution, but I would rather avoid that they can be downloaded. So far I didn't see an option to disable this. Does anyone have an answer?

[pico]

It is impossible to keep people from downloading images. Best water-mark them on the surface. Attempts at other measures such as embedded metadata and commercial 'hidden data' within the image are easily defeated.

 

Me, I'm happy should anyone want to copy my images. They are small here, and besides I appreciate copying as a compliment.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Martin B]

Thanks, pico, for answering my question and confirming my suspicion that there is no option to disable it. I agree that watermarking is a suitable way. Just that I personally made very bad experience on flickr several years back when some of my photos were downloaded (before I fully disabled this function) and then used without my knowledge nor permission on foreign commercial websites to sell camera gear. By accident this was found out, and another flickr member made me aware of it - when I contacted the two dealerships using my photos, they removed them from their website without any sorry nor excuse. Fortunately as you said the file size is small here which avoids that those photos can be printed large...but still. I feel complimented by a "like" but not really feeling comfortable seeing that someone downloads my posted photo. I wish there would be an option in the settings to either enable or disable it depending on personal preference.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Martin B

[jaapv]

As Pico said, it is impossible. Even if downloading is disabled one can always do a screenshot.

[pico]

I have a dedicated folder for my images copied and put on the Web by others. Of course none of the copies have any quality whatsoever. I have the original on 4x5", and have been paid for it a few times - never enough of course, which is my fault. I still kinda like it.

 

 

Copy it!

Edited February 8, 2016 by pico

[Martin B]

As Pico said, it is impossible. Even if downloading is disabled one can always do a screenshot.

 

A screenshot has a very, very poor resolution.....but the downloadable small size will still look decent on a small postcard size print. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Martin B

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A screenshot has a very, very poor resolution.....but the downloadable small size will still look decent on a small postcard size print. 

 

So now we settle for post cards. I think, or hope not.

[Martin B]

So now we settle for post cards. I think, or hope not.

 

There is a big business in Asia (and maybe also in other countries, not sure) to print "free" photos on cards and sell them. I understood that you don't care and prefer to have the download capability - but maybe we can agree that an option to enable or disable this function wouldn't hurt. 

[pop]

A screenshot has a very, very poor resolution.....but the downloadable small size will still look decent on a small postcard size print. 

A screen shot has exactly the resolution the image file has. The very act of looking at an image starts with downloading it to your computer. The only difference between "looking" and "downloading" consists in the decision of where on your computer the copy is stored.

 

Once you detect your image has been misused by someone, you should not write to them that they're naughty boys. You merely should send them a bill for the use of your photograph. Better yet, use an organisation which specialises in turning bills into money.

[Martin B]

A screen shot has exactly the resolution the image file has. The very act of looking at an image starts with downloading it to your computer. The only difference between "looking" and "downloading" consists in the decision of where on your computer the copy is stored.

 

Once you detect your image has been misused by someone, you should not write to them that they're naughty boys. You merely should send them a bill for the use of your photograph. Better yet, use an organisation which specialises in turning bills into money.

 

I disagree that the screenshot has the same resolution as the max. 500 KB JPG file which is uploaded. It already depends how you save your JPG file - which size, which dpi. This alone makes a difference in regard to the resolution of the photo which is not being taken into account by a simply PrtScn screenshot which will always look pixelated when zoomed into.

 

Second point goes into a different discussion about copyright infringement. Best of luck getting any Cent of the thieves especially when they are located in a foreign country. Of course you could hire a lawyer etc etc.....and you spend more money for achieving nothing. I decided for the most simple and pragmatic approach - telling them that I didn't give them any license of my photos, and that I might use legal enforcement to protect my rights as copyright owner. This was sufficient. A good strategist decides which fights are worth fighting for and if there is a possible gain by doing so. In this case, I saw it as worthless battle to fight for and without any gain (only more loss) for me in the end.

[pop]

I disagree that the screenshot has the same resolution as the max. 500 KB JPG file which is uploaded. It already depends how you save your JPG file - which size, which dpi. This alone makes a difference in regard to the resolution of the photo which is not being taken into account by a simply PrtScn screenshot which will always look pixelated when zoomed into. ....

When we keep the discussion to pictures uploaded to this forum: you can not upload a picture which exceeds 1280 pixels in either direction. Most pictures are something like 900 by 600 pixels and somewhere close to 500kB. A picture that size will be shown at full scale on the monitor, provided your monitor is large enough. A screen dump will reproduce the picture at its original resolution.

[Martin B]

When we keep the discussion to pictures uploaded to this forum: you can not upload a picture which exceeds 1280 pixels in either direction. Most pictures are something like 900 by 600 pixels and somewhere close to 500kB. A picture that size will be shown at full scale on the monitor, provided your monitor is large enough. A screen dump will reproduce the picture at its original resolution.

 

The photos I uploaded as attachment were 1500 pixels wide with 150 dpi (more than 1280 pixels, but the practical difference in resolution between 1280 and 1500 is minimal anyway). The upload feature only distinguished then between files larger or smaller than 500 KB - files above 500 KB get rejected. I uploaded files with 1500 pixels widest and about 400 KB without issue.

 

Google+ had it - just an option to disable the photo download function of shared photos in communities. Why not doing the same here? The screenshot discussion sounds like an excuse to keep the download function mandatory for all forum users. I am aware that I don't have a saying here to change this. I can see one purpose of downloading a photo if somebody is interested in the EXIF file. But my feeling is that the majority of users don't feel comfortable by having their posted photo downloaded anonymously by other members. I didn't even know that my attached photos were downloaded until I checked the forum on my cellphone browser - there I saw an entry next to my photo how often it was downloaded.

 

Well, pragmatically I will further downsize & watermark my posted photos here for attachments or better just link them to website photos (no upload needed then).

[pop]

Two things seem to be not quite clear.

 

One: The forum software enforces the rules re the image size. It point blank refuses to upload an image file with a file size of more than 500kB (or 1MB for premium members). After uploading it will downscale any image which exceeds 1280 pixels in either direction. If you want to make sure your image is shown in the best quality, you ought to downscale it yourself.

 

Two: In order to look at an image in the internet, you have to download it. This is nothing more sinister than just sending the image from the server over the line to your PC or phone. The browser in your computer will do that for you, so many users are not aware of the fact that showing an image on the display implies downloading it. The forum's statistics reflect that. The number under the heading "downloads" is the grand total number of times a picture has been sent by the server to a client. The information about whether the image is just depicted on a screen or stored on any media whatsoever is not available to the server.

[pico]

The photos I uploaded as attachment were 1500 pixels wide with 150 dpi (more than 1280 pixels, but the practical difference in resolution between 1280 and 1500 is minimal anyway).

 

You can set the resolution to anything you wish because resolution is ignored. There is no such thing as resolution for displayed images.

.

Edited February 9, 2016 by pico

[Martin B]

Two things seem to be not quite clear.

 

One: The forum software enforces the rules re the image size. It point blank refuses to upload an image file with a file size of more than 500kB (or 1MB for premium members). After uploading it will downscale any image which exceeds 1280 pixels in either direction. If you want to make sure your image is shown in the best quality, you ought to downscale it yourself.

 

Two: In order to look at an image in the internet, you have to download it. This is nothing more sinister than just sending the image from the server over the line to your PC or phone. The browser in your computer will do that for you, so many users are not aware of the fact that showing an image on the display implies downloading it. The forum's statistics reflect that. The number under the heading "downloads" is the grand total number of times a picture has been sent by the server to a client. The information about whether the image is just depicted on a screen or stored on any media whatsoever is not available to the server.

 

Okay, this is a helpful information. I didn't know that any photo fitting to the size requirement will always be downsized to 1280 pixels if it exceeds this number. Wasn't aware either that displaying the image on a cellphone is also listed as downloading. 

[andybarton]

Whether it's a phone or a computer makes no difference. 

 

If the device didn't download the image from a server, you wouldn't be able to see it. It's the same for text - that gets downloaded too. 

[hoppyman]

 

SNIP

Google+ had it - just an option to disable the photo download function of shared photos in communities. Why not doing the same here? The screenshot discussion sounds like an excuse to keep the download function mandatory for all forum users. I am aware that I don't have a saying here to change this. I can see one purpose of downloading a photo if somebody is interested in the EXIF file. But my feeling is that the majority of users don't feel comfortable by having their posted photo downloaded anonymously by other members. I didn't even know that my attached photos were downloaded until I checked the forum on my cellphone browser - there I saw an entry next to my photo how often it was downloaded.

 

Well, pragmatically I will further downsize & watermark my posted photos here for attachments or better just link them to website photos (no upload needed then).

Martin "right click disable" is settable on a number of image focused websites. However screen capture is unaffected. If you can view any image you have downloaded it and at whatever image size it has been displayed for example 600 pixels x 800 pixels or whatever. Really this is a very long standing situation, bringing rise to visible and invisible watermarking, size limiting, reverse searching etc strategies. Anything viewable can be copied. It is impossible to actually prevent 100%

 

If you are creating image files in Lightroom for example, you can choose to exclude some EXIF information if you wish.

 

 

[Martin B]

Martin "right click disable" is settable on a number of image focused websites. However screen capture is unaffected. If you can view any image you have downloaded it and at whatever image size it has been displayed for example 600 pixels x 800 pixels or whatever. Really this is a very long standing situation, bringing rise to visible and invisible watermarking, size limiting, reverse searching etc strategies. Anything viewable can be copied. It is impossible to actually prevent 100%

 

If you are creating image files in Lightroom for example, you can choose to exclude some EXIF information if you wish.

 

 

 

I state corrected here - I just tested it myself by doing a screenshot of one of my uploaded photos here, and then I tried to compare it to the downloaded photo. When I clicked on the download button underneath my posted photo, I realized that the download function just represents/shows the photo on a separate page in the same way as doing a screenshot - this is likely what others meant in earlier posts because the size and resolution is unchanged. I assumed that the download function would actually download the file which was originally used to upload it on the page. Got it now!