| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2005 07:56:16 PM · #1 |
I know it is impossible...but this site has nothing as far as I can see. I right click and download images all the time from the forums. Same from portfolios (I do this to apply processing techniques for comment purposes only). But at least a minimum could be applied here very easily.
Any time an image is right clicked a pop-up could be shown that warns/informs the viewer that the image is protected by copyright by the photographer. (For an example go to BetterPhoto.com. Right click on an image (such as the one in the OP of this thread Click and then right-click) and at least something is said before theft occurs. Fair warning and all...better than nothing! Doesn't prevent anything, but at least it is something.
Message edited by author 2005-12-27 19:57:04. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 07:57:54 PM · #2 |
It would be nice but no one will pay attention to it
|
|
|
|
12/27/2005 07:59:34 PM · #3 |
Easy to circumvent with javascript turned off :(
There are a few ways to protect images, but none viable for a site such as this. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 07:59:53 PM · #4 |
It already says this on the bottom of every page. Not quite as intrusive, but probably just as effective:
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2005 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:04:02 PM · #5 |
Like I said, won't prevent anything, but something is better than nothing. At least they have to click it off which would be an acknowledgement of their intent to steal. Won't stop them, but makes it clear.
Who reads the fine print at the bottom of pages? |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:05:22 PM · #6 |
| I know the pop-up at betterphoto isn't that much protection, but even if it doesn't prevent that many people from stealing, it's still nice to know that they are at least getting that reminder that they're doing something wrong. I'd love to see that implemented here. Even if there are ways around it, there are tons people out there who don't realize that stealing photos is in fact stealing. The warning might deter some of them and those that choose to print screen or sneak around it in other ways would get at least get a guilt trip. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:05:44 PM · #7 |
Just do like I do and submit horrible stuff. No one will ever steal my images, I promise...
:)
Oh, and by the way, I hate "no right click" scripts. They disable a lot of useful stuff, and any professional web designer considers them terribly unprofessional and cheesy. The reason is that any image thief worth a half a doggone bypasses them so easily that web pros know how useless they are. A safer approach by far is a flash based setup, but that's a major recode for DPC.
Message edited by author 2005-12-27 20:07:58. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:09:13 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Like I said, won't prevent anything, but something is better than nothing. At least they have to click it off which would be an acknowledgement of their intent to steal. Won't stop them, but makes it clear.
Who reads the fine print at the bottom of pages? |
If some one is going to steal your photo they are going to steal your photo. I think the best solution is doing the pervention yourself if your worried about someone stealing your photos. And DPC doesn't own the photos so they realy have no grounds to do that work in the frist place. I knida think it opens a big legal can of worms. I say let them steal them if they want Means people are looking at your work. |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:13:44 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:18:54 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nards656:
The reason is that any image thief worth a half a doggone bypasses them so easily that web pros know how useless they are. |
It is like a lock on your front door. It won't stop a real thief, but it will keep honest people honest.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:41:16 PM · #11 |
It's been debated ad infinitum... The bottom line is, the only folks that the "right-click-disable" ticks off are the folks who wouldn't steal an image anyhow. There are many uses for right-click that don't involve image theft or anything like it, for instance:
- Displaying the properties of an image, including the pixel size, file size, etcetera.
- Right-clicking on a link to use "display in new window"
- Right-clicking on a link to display properties ot see where the link leads, before clicking it
Unfortunately, disabling right-click also disables all these useful things. Nothing gets my goat faster than a right-click-disabled site. Bottom line, if someone can display your pic on their screen, they can snatch it if they so choose.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2005 08:51:32 PM · #12 |
Right-click java scripts are horrible waste of time and do tend to tick people off. Perhaps, after the challenges, adding a copyright on the photos via a PHP script would help remind thieves the images aren't public domain, but really no anti-theft "device" works on the web.
I make a habit of googling my file names and those assigned by sites I post on, just to make sure my images aren't being used w/o permission. :-) Noone is stealing them as far as I can tell. Darn, that sucks... I'm waiting for a big lawsuit ... lol.
The truth is, no big web site is going to steal your images. You're more likely to find your image on a MySpace page than on a website with a .com addy.
I'd propose that the most "stolen" images would be nudes.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2005 09:00:53 PM · #13 |
| this is a little off topic, but I'm curious, do you all fil in all the information in the properties of the photo before you post it? Anyone use a digital watermark on their images? |
|
|
|
12/28/2005 03:39:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's been debated ad infinitum... The bottom line is, the only folks that the "right-click-disable" ticks off are the folks who wouldn't steal an image anyhow. There are many uses for right-click that don't involve image theft or anything like it, for instance:
- Displaying the properties of an image, including the pixel size, file size, etcetera.
- Right-clicking on a link to use "display in new window"
- Right-clicking on a link to display properties ot see where the link leads, before clicking it
Unfortunately, disabling right-click also disables all these useful things. Nothing gets my goat faster than a right-click-disabled site. Bottom line, if someone can display your pic on their screen, they can snatch it if they so choose. |
Aside from the inconvenience it causes, it assumes guilt by attempting to force innocence. It is just plain insulting to be subjected to such tactics for no reason other than someone elses insecurities.
David
|
|
|
|
12/28/2005 03:45:36 AM · #15 |
There are many ways around disabled right click, for instance most keyboards have a button next the the F1, F2... "print screen" which takes a screen shot and could easily have the rest of the screen cropped out, to show only the picture.
A nice idea, but if someone wants something, they will get it. |
|
|
|
12/28/2005 04:16:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
(For an example go to BetterPhoto.com. Right click on an image (such as the one in the OP of this thread Click and then right-click) |
I did this without any problems, no warnings or anything.. I'm on a mac using safari, but most of these popup warnings and download restrictions and rightclick disable features are written for windows, so it doesn't work on macs.
and I don't see the point in protecting the images here, they are max 640x640 @72dpi and max 150kB
why protect that, better to use Digimarcâ„¢ to add contactinfo to your picture, that way all "stealing" of your image could be a potential sale, nobody steals a picture they don't like, so if contact info is embedded in the picture you might be able to sell a print, as the images here are useless for printing and too small for backgrounds. just my 2¢
|
|
|
|
12/28/2005 04:37:34 AM · #17 |
The very best protection we have against the theft of our work is the size of the images we submit.
A 640x480 & 150kb image is of no commercial use to anyone. If someone uses it to illustrate a private web site, then I for one would be flattered.
I doubt there will ever be a stronger argument for leaving the submit size as it is.
Brett |
|
|
|
12/28/2005 06:05:26 AM · #18 |
Brett's right on about the image size preventing people from making prints.
In my personal opinion, if someone wants to download my photo - fine with me. Maybe they'll look at it long enough and decide they want to buy a print. A lot of people are the same way with music - download a song and then buy the CD later if they really like it.
And finally, I'd like for everyone to have access to my photos, not just the people who can afford them. If someone wants to print out a low-quality version of a photo of mine and put it up on their wall for inspiration, they'd be a lot more worthy (in my mind) of that photo than someone who'll just put it in a room of many. Especially if the whole purpose of that photo is to inspire people to take some sort of political action - not just be a 'collector'. |
|
|
|
12/28/2005 07:56:57 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by nards656:
A safer approach by far is a flash based setup, but that's a major recode for DPC. |
Please NO, please do NOT use flash. I refuse to put any of my photos inside some horrid flash, when the ![]() tag is enough. Me hatesss it...
|
|
|
|
12/28/2005 08:35:25 AM · #20 |
I agree with KiwiPix, a 640x640 picture is useless for commercial use or printing. There couldn't be anything more annoying than the right-click JS which I see in web sites. Who are they trying to fool. As long as the image is displayed on a computer screen, the user can do what they like with it, javascript or no javascript. Above all, the image is already downloaded and stored on your hard-disk (ever care to look in your temporary internet files folder?). Browsers download it, spider programs can download it, you can press PrintScreen and paste it in any image editor and crop it, etc.
There is no single way to prevent somebody to aquire an image from a public web page. It's public, they've seen it, it's theirs.
The only thing you can do is to make it useless for them, either by using a small resolution (as DPC does) or use watermarks which imho suck.
P.S.: Digital signing is an option but can only be of any use IF somebody has used your image somewhere exactly as it was downloaded. |
|
|
|
12/28/2005 08:37:38 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by alittlefishy:
Especially if the whole purpose of that photo is to inspire people to take some sort of political action... |
I like that
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 06:00:54 PM EDT.
