I've spent hours upon heaps of hours browsing through the sites listed here at Photoblogs.org, and one thing I've discovered is that there are as many different copyright and image-protection schemas as there are layouts. Some use image-editing software to imprint each and every picture with a brief copyright blurb—"©2004 IDWIC," for example. Others detail accepted usage on their "about" pages, and some list it on ever page. In a few cases photobloggers use javascript to disable the save feature; in a few others, photos are encapsulated in Flash files.
Personally, I use a Creative Commons license to protect mine. My license basically says that you can use my photos as you like, as long as you don't make any bling off them, as long as you give me credit, and as long as the derivative work is released under a similar license. I'm not too concerned with people taking my photos and turning them into banner art for their weblogs, or something along those lines. But if Wal-Mart happens by and feels like it needs a photo for one of its fliers, then I'll come a knockin' for my cut.
I'm curious as to who else uses Creative Commons licenses, and if they feel these are sufficient protection. I've heard photographers argue that as long as their work is up on the web it's unprotected. And I've seen those who will only post ridiculously small images on their gallery sites as a way of protecting their work. On the other hand, most photobloggers tend toward large images (many of mine are 700x525 pixels—large enough for a decent 3x5 print) . . . Also, does anyone here use a robots file to keep Google from indexing images?
