Re: Printing pages from web sites.

On 1 Mar, 18:14, "Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I did install a new program called Imagecut. It cuts the images in segments
and creates an HTML file Works great for me. Anyone who tries to download
using the eight mouse button only gets one section at time..
Kurt Knollwww.kurtknoll.com"Geoff" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1170176083.336491.16960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



I have visited Kurt's website. Its a bit jazzy and I'd prefer not to
hear the music. But a lot of the photographs are superb and I can
understand why people might like to download and print copies. They
shouldn't republish them though.

Dan, I have some photographs that are probably too large to display on
some users monitors. The intention of the website though is to
impress visitors with the beauty of the countryside and therefore,
even if the photos are downloaded, and printed without permission, it
is part of the price of conveying an important message. I am limiting
my audience to those users who are using at least a resolution of 1024
x 768 and a display that is not smaller than 15 inches.

There is a general problem with publishing photographs and artistic
images on the Internet and that is that either the publisher is
prepared to sacrifice the quality of the published work as seen by the
user, or not. If the publisher decides that he or she would prefer
that users do see the work in the highest quality then they must be
prepared, apparently, for someone to copy their work without
permission.

Alternatively they could set up their website so that their highest
resolution images are available for a payment and access to their work
is made through completing a form. A selected crop of a full
resolution image could be made available so that users could see for
themselves what the photograph really looks like. I have done this on
the page entitled Autumn Magic onwww.freshfordmill.co.uk- but
without setting up a payment facility. I have just included a complete
photo that cannot be really appreciated on the Internet and a full
size detail -that still needs to be scrolled vertically on a 15 inch
display.

If the Canadian Northwest were to be under threat from development
then Kurt's photos published at their highest resolution would be
extremely important in helping to shape public opinion.

On 30 Jan, 05:00, "DanR" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Geoff wrote:
There must be some way though, It should be possible, it is certainly
desirable to be able to prevent copying. At present there are web
publishers who might like to provide the super quality that they have
captured as photographs or that are scans of paintings but are
inhibited to do so because people can download them to print on their
own printer rather than pay for the photo from the website. The
argument is discussed onhttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/
showthread.php?t=29833

I have thought of using digimarc, at least to protect copyright. The
full service will trace images that are republished as well. The
problem is that it is very expensive, requires an annual subscription,
and can only be considered by a succesfull professional photographer
or artist or a web hosting service that publishes high quality work.

I have Watermark Factory that can be used to add a lot of information
to your images but doesn't trace unauthorised republishing.

On 28 Jan, 15:34, "DanR" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
L Covey wrote:
There are ways to get around that, though.Alt Print Screen will
capture current window to the clip board. Any image
editor can then open that image and user can crop out all but the
picture and do what ever with it.The method I described will only
capture what can be displayed on the screen
at a given time. Therefore the person copying is limited by the
resolution
of their display. If their display is 1280x1024 for example... and your
picture is of a greater resolution than that... then the copycat can not
capture your picture at its native resolution. But... they could capture
the
high res picture in segments and paste it together. Another but... but
why
would someone post a picture at a higher resolution than most people
could
display.
... I seem to be debating myself...- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted
text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Kurt,
sounds good to me. The only way that anyone could synthesize your
photos would be to stick them together! which I presume would not be
feasible if the photo was cut into a dozen or so pieces. Unless the
miscreant is a jigsaw expert! Can the image be re-synthesized by
anyone who has the software?
geoff

.