On the top of our list is putting in place a security measure to protect your artwork images.  
 
Although the images on GCU can not be captured in a resolution that will reproduce a high quality print, we agree with your concerns and are going use image watermarks on the larger images (not on the thumbnail images and due to the nature ecards, no watermarks on ecards).  
 
We'd like to inhibit the card shopping experience as little as possible by using a subtle watermark that conveys a positive message to the shoppers.  Since cards will be sold across other sites we will not use GCU in the watermark.
 
Perhaps something like:  
"Image Rights", "Sample Artwork", "Protected Artwork", "Protected Image", "Image Sample", "Sample Image"...
 
Here is a sample:  http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/community/sample.jpg
 
Please express your opinions and suggestions here!
 
Thanks for your input, Mindy

This is awesome!    
 
I have no preference as to the wording but am really thrilled that  
the images will be secured.

Another great improvement to GCU!  Thanks very much! This site gets better and better.
Christine

I'm so relieved that a watermark will be added. That has been my main concern.
It's way too easy for people to click on the enlarged image and just copy it.

I like the sample. Thanks for acting on this concern.

Our image security measures are scheduled to be live on 3/1.
 
That includes the watermarking as well as right-click disablement.
 
Jim,
If we disable right-click function on the thumbnails is that sufficient or would you like to see watermark on those too?
 
Thanks for the opinions!  We are moving forward based on your collective input and are absolutely committed to putting in place precautions for artists to be comfortable using our service.  It is priority #1!
 
 
Mindy

Just checking in to see how it is going!
 
 
I will check back on the 1st!
 
PS: Jim do you think 72 dpi would help on the thumbnails?

The watermark is fantastic.   Thanks for adding it. I feel much better with it there.

Quote from 131259 on Mar 26^th, 2007, 12:21pm:

 
No disabling right click puts up a small barrier (very small but still a barrier) to prevent theft of your artwork. It does not matter if it is your mother or a kid wanting to use it as an avatar on My Space.
 
Quote:

 
They are both the same. If Grandma swipes my image for any use that's just as illegal as a sweat shop knocking out apparel with my image that was swiped.  
 
Quote:

 
Nothing secure, not even your YouTube example. There are plenty of ways to pull you tube video onto your computer and they are simple (democracy player for one).
 
The fact that security measures can be gone around does not mean they are useless. They will not stop a thief bent on taking what's yours, but they may prevent the person that thinks, "I like this and want this" and then realize they can't.
 
By your reasoning, why lock your house? I can easily enter your home by breaking a window so why close the window? The reason is the closed window will deter an impulse theft as opposed to just being an annoyance to a large scale crook.
 
Quote:

 
By disabling right click you are taking nothing from the user. They are at a site like this to buy a product, disabling right click does not prevent or hinder that in way, shape, or form.
 
Images are taken and used for purposes they are not meant to be used for and the artists are not paid for their use. People earn their living creating images and the last thing anyone wants is to be suspect on any site like this that offers POD merchandise. If GCU didn't at least take some basic steps to protect my images, I and i am sure many others, would not have done business here. Some of us have spent a lot of time and money creating our art, copyrighting it, trademarking, etc.. It's not just an image.
 
Like the lock on my door, it can be broken, my home can be entered despite the precautions I take but I eliminate some of the threat by taking basic steps to protect my safety.

[quote author=131308 link=1172089671/15#16 date=1175002710][quote author=131259 link=1172089671/15#15 date=1174936892]
 
 
 
Quote:

 
You made it seem like the democracy player reverse engineer the you Tube files. That was why I said there may be issues with the DCMA and shut down. The democracy player is just an aggregator, so it uses the API's that you tube has exposed and rss to allow you to view the files, but YouTube allows it as another distribution channel. It doesn’t appear like the democracy player allows you to steal the file and reuse it. It just uses YouTubes standard tools. So if the decide to not allow a video it probably isn't available via the democracy player anymore either?

[quote author=131259 link=1172089671/15#17 date=1175110461][quote author=131308 link=1172089671/15#16 date=1175002710]Quote from 131259 on Mar 26^th, 2007, 12:21pm:

 
Locking your Anderson window or True Value door lock at home is no security either but most people do so.
 
90% or more of the computer users know drag and drop, they don't know saving the page to their local drive, screen shot, etc.
 
It is not security that will stop someone of snagging the image other ways but it eliminates the easiest and most popular way. Theft is theft.
 
I still go by original example. Why lock your windows or doors at home because someone can easily enter your home.  
 
You are right in stating it is not providing a high degree of security and may get in the way of people who actually know computers, security, etc.  I am stating that the people you are talking about are not the norm and are not thinking of image theft, just looking for something to sue as an avatar or their school newsletter clip art.
 
Any site using original creations is obligated to protect the rights and trademarks of those supplying the creative elements. Part of that is disabling the easiest and most common ways theft occurs.
 
You lock your home because it is easy, inexpensive and will stop most impulse thieves.
 
 
Quote:

 
And any of this has what to do with disabling right click? Those who use right click to copy an image are doing exactly what many creative don't want them to do, steal artwork. This is not complicated.
 
Quote:

 
Again, this has what to do with the discussion?  If people complain they can't copy an image off a site, so what? They are not supposed to copy an image off the site.  They are supposed to purchase the product with the image on it so the company paying for this site and the artist who created the image are paid for their time. This is not complicated or difficult to fathom. Don't steal.

To give artists increased flexibility, we've made the image watermark optional.  This is for artists who are not concerned about image misuse and prefer not to obstruct the visual of their online images.
 
On the Card Creation and edit page this is a checkbox option that can be unchecked.  The default is checked ON to include the watermark.  
 
A future consideration related to this is a global option to turn the watermark on/off your entire gallery.
 
Mindy
 

Quote from Terry_131260 on Jul 19^th, 2007, 11:06pm:

I agree with you Terry.    In many cases the watermark messes up the image, specially if there is any text as part of the image.   As you mentioned, anyone can buy one's card for a few dollars and scan it at the highest resolution.    I think there is a wide range of opinions on this topic, thats why we decided to offer it as an option.
 
Nasser

 
(eating popcorn and enjoying this volley of information)
 
So informative--great debate!  
 
-Kerra

I like the new one just find--wording and all--will the wording be located like that (twice) across all images?  or is it random?  Hard to tell--but are the words over the card--or under the image?

Quote from Mindy on Sep 27^th, 2007, 4:20pm:

 
 
Thanks, Mindy--I wasn't sure if the watermark was on the 'paper' then the image went on top--or....wait, I'm a little slow--I guess that doesn't make any sense since they're not physically laid on top like a projector sheet...
 
doh!
-Kerra