Copyright protection against snapshotting textures

Hi, I want to start an art gallery and store, but seemingly there is nothing to stop someone coming into my gallery and taking a hi res photo of artwork (specifically flat art, not sculpture).

All they would then need to do is Photoshop it a bit, then upload it again and stick it on their wall!

It there some protection against this, such as the ability to asign a 'no photo' option to textures?

Otherwise, there really is no point starting an ART GALLERY at all, if you want to run it as a business that is.

So, if you could make textures 'non photographable; that would be great. Though, how to stop people taking 'screen shots' in their OS is another problem.

Love Fur Yifu

I'm sorry, but I don't think it can be done. There will always be screenshot programms, not having anything to do with sl. Maybe you can put a watermark or something over your displayed paintings/textures.

Yes, only solution is a watermark. And remember there are textur id's too...

Watermark doesnt help, if you can see it, theres a way to get it, either by screenshotting or other methods i dont want to go in detail with.

Welcome to the internet, there is no copy protection.

The only solution is not to upload a high-resolution version of your artwork. Don't give away the crown jewels! For my in-world photo gallery, most of the textures of my artwork are a maximum of 256 pixels in any dimension (with a few 256x512 textures). The originals, of course, have much higher resolutions.

This is just like having a gallery on your website. If you don't want people to steal it, don't display it. Do remember that you have legal recourse if people do steal your work... but the best way to defend yourself is simply not to display a high-resolution version of your artwork in SL.

Glintercept (if you don't know what that is google probably has a few thousand listings for it) and a few other ways yes however it should be noted though that a screenshot will almost never be as good as the original in terms of image quality since the texture is downscaled when being sent to the client and it is nearly impossible to upscale an image without causing issues.

Reminds me that just the other day I took a piece of artwork that was 8.5 x 11 @ 72 ppi and--because I'd like a poster sized version, and the artist doesn't have the capability to print that large--I thought I'd see what kind of quality I could get.

You'd be surprised. I increased that sucker all the way up to 18 x 24 @ 300 ppi with hardly a notch in quality (and for those who don't have a calculator, that's a 10 fold increase in dimentions). Mind, it took 2 programs and several kludges of "lets make this look passable at a distance, not up close" (I did actually lose detail in places).

No, it's not the same as having a true original (which was 8.5 x 11 @ 1200 ppi, or a 16 fold increase over the web-version), but it would make for a rather remarkable poster.

Ok not impossible but somewhat impractical but I think even texture designers will admit that there is no way to prevent texture theft just make it harder and the complexity and difficulty of upscaling is one of them although LL should be the last to get credit for this.

Yes, it's impractical, but keep in mind the process I went through wasn't to take a 128x128 sampe texture and make it a 512x512 so that it looks better when I put it on my wall. It was to take a picture and make it a billboard: the intended viewing distance is increased by the same factor as the increased resolution.