I am looking for software that will let me make a secure photo gallery on my site. Currently I use Aperture 3.1.1 which makes a nice photo gallery but is not secure so I watermark each picture.

I have read that Flash 10 offers secure photo gallery.

What software are people using that has a secure (no copying or pulling stills) gallery?

After checking on line it looks like Flash Slide Show Box is the way to go unless someone has a better options?
HTML & Flash slideshow gallery templates | Slideshow Box (http://www.slideshowbox.com/)

If you are concerned about people copying your photos then don't put them on the Web. There is no such thing as a secure slide show. If it can be displayed in a browser on someones computer then it can be copied.

Avoid Flash as you will be excluding all those viewing your photos on the iPhone and iPad.

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your input. I am putting my stills up on my site for a lot of different reasons. Right now they are up and have a watermark.

I talked with Flash Photo Box tech yesterday and his said it is secure and can not be copied or pulled from the site.

Nigel you make a great point about Flash not working with iphone and iPad. I did not know this was the case until I just checked it out. Thanks this is important.

I talked with Flash Photo Box tech yesterday and his said it is secure and can not be copied or pulled from the site.That's simply not true. You can do things to deter the casual non-technical copier but anyone who really wants to can copy anything that appears in a browser whether it's a photo or a video. The best way to establish your ownership is to watermark. I don't know what photos you will be uploading but the other way of protecting yourself is not to make your pictures available in the highest resolution so that if someone wants one they have to contact you & pay for it.

That's simply not true. You can do things to deter the casual non-technical copier but anyone who really wants to can copy anything that appears in a browser whether it's a photo or a video Absolutely true. $99 per year is not such a big deal to pay for a digital watermark, especially for a professional.

Edit. I mean that I agree with Nigel about nothing being 100% secure on the internet.

Absolutely true. $99 per year is not such a big deal to pay for a digital watermark, especially for a professional.

If someone wants it bad enough, nothing is secure...

And that grab is good enough to blow up to 8x10. Once it is online, it is never fully 100% secure.

OK guess there is no way to protect the image except to watermark and keep it low res.

Ilya not sure what you mean by "$99 per year is not such a big deal to pay for a digital watermark, especially for a professional."? I do watermark my photos and videos with my current software that has not been the discussion.

If you've never heard about digital watermarking you can learn about it more here: https://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/ But again this is not 100 bulletproof. Nothing is

Thanks Ilya I have not heard of the digital watermarking where you can track your photos. Very interesting I will look into it.

Do you use this software?

Yes, I started using it not too long ago. It's actually comes with Photoshop (located under Filters) so it can easily be integrated into your workflow.

If your image file gets downloaded the digital watermark will be preserved even if the resolution gets changed or other manipulation is done to the image. However a simple screen grab will not copy the hidden steganographic watermark so you will also need to add a visible watermark.

Thanks for helping me out with this Ilya, I will give this a go. I don't use Photoshop for editing my stills I use Aperture but I will make sure the workflow is easy first.

Agree Nigel I will also put a watermark on the picture.

Now we need a digital watermark to follow our on-line videos?

Hi Paul,

You should register all images (and i"m guessing video too) with the Library of Congress for $45. The ideal is to send them a CD with your entire Web site every 90 days if you are adding images routinely.

As NIgel correctly says, if it's on the web it can be stolen. With the latest PS it's a piece of cake to remove watermarks and crop. Your images are 880px × 587px. Making them smaller with a max of about 500 or less on the longest side will make them less desireable for stealing.

Beautiful web site and images Paul!

Regards,
Doug.

Thanks for your thoughts Doug.

Library of Congress for my site is in the works and going in Monday. I had my attorney look at it first since I have 4 copyrights and 2 patents that she has helped me with in the past.

It is a pain in the butt all of the people stealing off of sights. I had someone at my New Years party say it is not big deal, I told them what I thought and they won't be invited back. It is a new mine set that if you can see it or hear it you can use it. We need a few good law firms who are willing to jump on this and start making examples of people who are caught and get the laws changed so they are STRICT. But for now all we can do is watermark in the middle of the picture and on the video with registered copyright.

FWIW, the laws are already strict, but the cost of enforcement is pretty substantial, with little chance of meaningful recovery... sadly you can't "make" people respect the property rights of others, and the digital revolution makes it that much simpler to have your "property" violated.

Thank you for all the helpful information.

Thanks for helping me out with this Ilya, I will give this a go. I don't use Photoshop for editing my stills I use Aperture but I will make sure the workflow is easy first.

Agree Nigel I will also put a watermark on the picture.

Now we need a digital watermark to follow our on-line videos?

Glad to be of help. I think Digimarc offers something for video. Not sure about the details, though.

We need a few good law firms who are willing to jump on this and start making examples of people who are caught and get the laws changed so they are STRICT.Copyright laws don't need changing as they are quite clear. The ultra-litigious lawyers employed by Getty Images are already persecuting plenty of little people for mostly inadvertent use of images they don't have the rights to use. I think that the message will get out there eventually.