Facebook/photos

woodstock

woodstock

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
9,342
Location
Out of a suitcase
Display Name
Display name:
iTravel
Hello

Does anyone know how to prevent others from downloading your photos when you post them? Every photo album I've seen on facebook has a one click possibility for downloading photos... this is on a variety of friends' albums so I'm guessing it's a default...
 
woodstock said:
Hello

Does anyone know how to prevent others from downloading your photos when you post them? Every photo album I've seen on facebook has a one click possibility for downloading photos... this is on a variety of friends' albums so I'm guessing it's a default...
Click to expand...

When you view a photo you have already downloaded it. Once you post a photo to the web it's fair game and you can't do anything about it. You can copyright it and potentially chase down people for using it but you can't stop them from getting a digital copy of it.
 
I think I'm more concerned about 'full size'. Small photos you can't do much with them...
 
Ps I rarely/ ever put good stuff on Facebook but I have photos of family including niece and nephew...
 
Like I tell my kids (they don't listen) whatever you Text, Tweet, or post on Facebook is public information regardless of so-called security settings. If you don't want to see it posted on a bill-board then don't put it on the web.

PS. Same goes for blogs!
 
You need to "Like" this group.

You could also consider only uploading downsized versions of your photos... watermarking everything you upload is an option, too, but can be cropped or edited to remove, so isn't a perfect solution, either. Good advertising for you, though.

Do you upload your photos with visibility to "Everyone", "Friends only" or "Friends of Friends"? You can limit who might download high-res copies by limiting who can see them.
 
If a photo can be displayed on a PC screen, it can be saved locally. Even if a website has some sort of javascript that disables the Right Click --> Save As function, you can hit the "Print Screen" button on your keyboard and paste the image into Photoshop or whatever.

Bottom line is, if you don't want a photo to be saved by the wrong person, don't post it anywhere on the internet.
 
I am afraid there's no way to forbid them to download your pix. That's the catch of joning social media sites such as Facebook.
 
I just upload small file copies of my pics to Facebook, somebody wants it, fine. If you are concerned about it you could watermark them. If Facebook was considerate, they would set it up to automatically put your name and copyright stamp on it when downloaded.
 
I don't put "keepers" on facebook. I do put people-photos on facebook. At the end of the day, I don't see an enormous amount of damage being done if they took the photos I have, but, they are mine and I think it's stupid they allow for download so easily.
 
Browsers automatically download everything. It's all in the cache folder as soon as the page is loaded.
 
woodstock said:
I don't put "keepers" on facebook. I do put people-photos on facebook. At the end of the day, I don't see an enormous amount of damage being done if they took the photos I have, but, they are mine and I think it's stupid they allow for download so easily.
Click to expand...

I really think you need to read a little bit about what the web is and how it works before you accuse others of being stupid.
 
jtheune said:
I really think you need to read a little bit about what the web is and how it works before you accuse others of being stupid.
Click to expand...

Facebook has long had privacy issues. Having a one-click download to take photos (as opposed to not making it easy and obvious) is stupid.
 
woodstock said:
Facebook has long had privacy issues. Having a one-click download to take photos (as opposed to not making it easy and obvious) is stupid.
Click to expand...

It's actually a zero click download....on every website.
 
EdFred said:
It's actually a zero click download....on every website.
Click to expand...

Well, one can encapsulate it in Flash or Java, hijack the browser functions, and make it much harder to do, but that requires sophistication beyond your typical sharing website.
 
I have settings on flickr which discourages this (doesn't fully prevent, but discourages). I would like to think facebook could do the same thing. It won't stop really determined, savvy people, but it will discourage a fair number of people.
 
woodstock said:
I have settings on flickr which discourages this (doesn't fully prevent, but discourages). I would like to think facebook could do the same thing. It won't stop really determined, savvy people, but it will discourage a fair number of people.
Click to expand...

Even on Flickr, its a two step process to download full quality photos.

1. Right Click.
2. Save As

Or, in cases where the developer (wrongly) disables right click:

1. Go to browser cache
2. Copy photo elsewhere

There's no getting around it, its how browsers work. All Facebook has done is eliminated the "Feel good" security around disabling features in the browser.

Think of those things as the TSA, and browser features as our constitutional rights. We still have the rights, TSA just makes it feel like we don't.
 
woodstock said:
Facebook has long had privacy issues. Having a one-click download to take photos (as opposed to not making it easy and obvious) is stupid.
Click to expand...


That depends on your intent is with the pictures. You can chose to limit to friends but I suggested to Facebook that it would be nice if the downloads would be watermarked with a copyright. They could possibly be sued into it, but it may also be judged that's your responsibility before you upload.
 
It would be nice if Flickr would do a "Buy it" download option where you can declare private use at one price or click commercial use which gets a message to you and you can negotiate. There are "stock photo" agencies though...
 
woodstock said:
I have settings on flickr which discourages this (doesn't fully prevent, but discourages). I would like to think facebook could do the same thing. It won't stop really determined, savvy people, but it will discourage a fair number of people.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think Facebook will ever do anything to discourage it. FB is a company that's built it's reputation on getting people to share everything. They don't see it as being their responsibility to protect (or offer tools to protect) your intellectual property - except as required by law (DMCA and so forth). It's evidenced by their "default" privacy sharings, which encourage you to open everything as broadly as possible.

And they do make it clear: look at their terms of service:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
<...>
When you publish content or information using the everyone setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
Click to expand...

Technology-wise, yes, they can implement something that would make it more difficult to download. Practically, they have chosen not to. AFAIK, there is no law that requires them to (nor do they have an obligation).

FWIW, at one time (and I assume it's still true) FB degraded the quality of the pictures and made a point to tell folks not to use the service as an archive.
 
One thing I think they could be forced to do is to differentiate your photos in your sharing so you can select the level of sharing, but since the watermarking doesn't block sharing and protects copyright and wouldn't be difficult for them to implement, I suggested that.
 
wsuffa said:
Well, one can encapsulate it in Flash or Java, hijack the browser functions, and make it much harder to do, but that requires sophistication beyond your typical sharing website.
Click to expand...

Screenshot. Done. Not sophisticated at all.

If it's on the screen, I can save it. Guaranteed. Even if I have to go rip it forcefully out of video memory. :)

And if it's on the Internet, it's public... or it eventually will be, either by design or by security mistake.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
FB is a company that's built it's reputation on getting people to share everything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I thought that was pretty much the point of FB. Even on other sites, as long as someone can view a photo they can capture it and save it with a screen grab program. Even someone as low-tech as I am can figure that out.
 
Everskyward said:
Exactly. I thought that was pretty much the point of FB. Even on other sites, as long as someone can view a photo they can capture it and save it with a screen grab program. Even someone as low-tech as I am can figure that out.
Click to expand...

True.

I wouldn't want to speak for Beth, but as a photographer, I know that screen capture will be a significantly lower resolution than the original photo. Dowwnloading a jpeg (or TIFF or RAW) will generally allow for a higher resolution photo that can be resized and printed. Typical display resolution is on the order of 72 dpi, while printed photos are usually >300 dpi.

So, as a photographer, I personally am less concerned about screen capture than downloads. I shoot in raw (and scan to TIFF), but what I put on the web I downgrade to a "reasonable" jpeg & watermark with a photo program. Won't stop someone that's determined, but they also won't get the best quality photo.

I have one different view (and tolerance) for folks seeing and using my photos. Some I don't release at all (at least not yet) - that's especially true for ones going into my "project". My view is that since the dawn of photography it's been possible to "copy" someone's work - with high quality cameras, one can take a photo of your photo. Digital makes it far easier to copy. Very hard to stop, even with DRM. So my theory is that I don't mind posting lower resolution, watermarked pictures because the folks that are interested in buying will want the high quality, clean ones.

I think I understand Beth's concern, and I fully support what she seems to want to achieve. If you plan to sell your photos, you don't want someone to download and get for free.

Given FB's premise of existance, I don't ever see them doing anything that would stand in the way of "sharing" of content. Heck, within the last 2 weeks, they eliminated the policy that allowed some companies to prevent comments to their walls.
 
wsuffa said:
True.

I wouldn't want to speak for Beth, but as a photographer, I know that screen capture will be a significantly lower resolution than the original photo. Dowwnloading a jpeg (or TIFF or RAW) will generally allow for a higher resolution photo that can be resized and printed. Typical display resolution is on the order of 72 dpi, while printed photos are usually >300 dpi.

So, as a photographer, I personally am less concerned about screen capture than downloads. I shoot in raw (and scan to TIFF), but what I put on the web I downgrade to a "reasonable" jpeg & watermark with a photo program. Won't stop someone that's determined, but they also won't get the best quality photo.

I have one different view (and tolerance) for folks seeing and using my photos. Some I don't release at all (at least not yet) - that's especially true for ones going into my "project". My view is that since the dawn of photography it's been possible to "copy" someone's work - with high quality cameras, one can take a photo of your photo. Digital makes it far easier to copy. Very hard to stop, even with DRM. So my theory is that I don't mind posting lower resolution, watermarked pictures because the folks that are interested in buying will want the high quality, clean ones.

I think I understand Beth's concern, and I fully support what she seems to want to achieve. If you plan to sell your photos, you don't want someone to download and get for free.

Given FB's premise of existance, I don't ever see them doing anything that would stand in the way of "sharing" of content. Heck, within the last 2 weeks, they eliminated the policy that allowed some companies to prevent comments to their walls.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Which is why I'm not concerned about screen captures.

Facebook allows for a full download and it's not hidden, it's obvious. I put things on my blog on low rez. Flickr makes it tougher (not impossible, but tougher). One of my top shots has gone around and around on tumblr 3000 times, at least (it tracks back to my flickr account). I don't really care all that much, it's publicity. I have my website linked back to it so I am "found" often probably from that one photo.

I don't put keepers on FB and don't ever plan to do so. The ones I have up there now aren't a big deal, but they are of me/friends/family and it's irritating that I cannot OPT OUT of a full download (which again, is only going to deter people who aren't determined/aren't savvy).

Adding watermarks on things adds another step to processing. I have done it, I don't do it all the time. I probably should.
 
woodstock said:
Adding watermarks on things adds another step to processing. I have done it, I don't do it all the time. I probably should.
Click to expand...

Don't know what photo processing package you're using, but some of them can batch process a watermark onto an entire directory of photos. A couple of clicks & keystrokes, and voila! a few seconds later the entire directory is done.

I don't use flickr, but I place photos on my own server using a program that offers the option to watermark every photo automagically as I upload. It works well.

One other thing.... consider adding a copyright statement to the EXIF data. I don't recall if the 7D will do it, but my scanner/scanner program does. For every photo I scan.
 
woodstock said:
I don't put keepers on FB and don't ever plan to do so. The ones I have up there now aren't a big deal, but they are of me/friends/family and it's irritating that I cannot OPT OUT of a full download (which again, is only going to deter people who aren't determined/aren't savvy).
Click to expand...
Can't you resize your photos to small before you upload them? I know that's an extra step an a PITA but if you are concerned it might be worth it.
 
Everskyward said:
Can't you resize your photos to small before you upload them? I know that's an extra step an a PITA but if you are concerned it might be worth it.
Click to expand...

That's what I do, all my Facebook pics are up there as "email" sized files.
 
Well, it's a balancing act. Many of my photos are "best viewed" full size, although for most screens that doesn't have to be a 7 MB file, I can resize it smaller and it will still be "big".

I have got to get lightroom, or something. I only use Picasa which is OK but kind of basic. Although that might allow me to watermark 100%, not sure.
 
Beth,

I just checked my Canon 7D. In one of the settings menus, there's an option to enter copyright information. You can enter author's name & a copyright statement that will be included in the EXIF file. Obviously, if someone strips the EXIF, it'll disappear, but it's one small step....

I just set mine up to include a copyright with each picture taken.
 
This is slightly OFF Beth's premise, but a technique I use. If I shoot a project and need to show PROOF(s) to a prospect:
(a.) The old days was to print a 5 x 7 and stamp it PROOF.
(B.) Today, with digital, I'll e-mail a 320 x 320 file of the applicable images, the result of which is a wallet-size view.

The quality of the image is there to be viewed but if the prospective client thinks he/she can make some prints of it, any results 4 x 6 or larger are going to fall apart re quality.

HR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top