| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2006 04:42:42 AM · #1 |
It's probably been suggested before, but in view of recent image thefts, I was wondering if it might be a nice idea to have a checkbox for right-click protecting images. A lot of websites have right-click protected pages and items, so I can't imagine it would be toooo difficult for HTML coding wizards like D&L.
Naturally, such a thing would be default to ON, but could be removed.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could also have a checkbox to Allow favorite photographers right-click priveleges.
This would allow you to mark a user as a favorite (I have a few buddies in my favorites list that I trust) and they could right-click all they wanted.
It would probably be important to apply the right-click protection to the image itself, not the link to the image as most people use right-click to open images in their own window.
I realize that this doesn't stop everyone and there are still ways of getting around it, but the same could be said about locks on doors. At least it's a deterrent that would make the excellent image collection on this website a little less of a playground for plagiarists. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 04:52:14 AM · #2 |
| i think its a good idea to have this as an option, but i have encountered problems in the past. MRX use a feature similar to this, but XP users can leave the cursor over the picture and and option to save is then displayed (with no right clicking). is there any way this could be overcome? |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 04:52:47 AM · #3 |
| I would think some would see it as more of a challenge to get past the protection. Watermarks seem a better idea to me. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 04:54:27 AM · #4 |
I'm a website designer so I keep my eye on these kinds of issues.
I've had images stolen before, so I am sympathetic to the impulse behind this idea, but disabling right-clicks is a very controversial way of 'protecting' images.
. It's incredibly easy to get around.
. It just annoys people who have valid reasons to right-click on images. For example, I do it to see the size of the file if I see lots of artifacting when voting.
. Many designers believe it is unethical to force a website page to behave in a way that people aren't used to. I'm with them.
All it gives is the illusion of safety. In reality it does nothing.
It's impossible to create an image which can't be stolen at all, anybody determined enough will find a way. But if we want to make it harder, we have better choices. Allowing watermarking is probably the most effective method of stopping thieves, but it will need very clear guidelines. It also seems a shame to make the image less effective.
Someone who stole my images told me I should have watermarked them if I didn't want them stolen, but I believe that the pleasure people get from seeing them without a watermark is worth the occasional risk of them being stolen.
Another way to protect them which is nearer the idea of disabling right-clicks is to use a very small dynamic Flash script which loads the relevant image. Rather than the usual HTML code for an image, you just call the Flash script with the location of the image and it will load it up. Again, people can get round it with a screen capture but you're making someone work a little harder to get it and it works much more elegantly than a disable right-click javascript.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 05:31:05 AM · #5 |
I agree with Bob on nearly everything. If the image is a part of a web page -- by the time the person sees it, it is already on their computer. The one place I may disagree is with the use of Javascript. It is 'may disagree' because I'm not sure if he was in support of it, or just mentioning it as an alternative. But anyway, it is a more elegant than disabling right-click, but it also prevents a lot of the functionality that makes this site so interesting. Bob, again, mentioned looking at the properties of the image -- but more importantly it also actively discourages anyone from loading the image into PS and 'playing' with it. On a site developed around the concept of learning, I feel restricting access is the wrong way to go -- but that is just my 2 cents. :D
David
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:09:20 AM · #6 |
Thanks David,
just to clarify, disabling right-click uses Javascript which I'm not in favour of.
It's possible to use a simple dynamic Flash script to do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:14:49 AM · #7 |
| Watermarks would be the best way to go, disabling right-clicks is very very easy to get round. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:25:15 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
Watermarks would be the best way to go, disabling right-clicks is very very easy to get round. |
and Flash?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:25:20 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
Watermarks would be the best way to go, disabling right-clicks is very very easy to get round. |
Indeed, they're the only way to prevent image theft. After all, the image has to be downloaded onto your PC in order to be viewed, thus can simply be copied out of the browser cache, or someone could just take a printscreen of the image and do whatever with that. However, watermarks detract from the look of the image, so there's a price to be paid for such security...
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:30:43 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Manic:
However, watermarks detract from the look of the image, so there's a price to be paid for such security... |
That's true |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:36:33 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Indeed, they're the only way to prevent image theft. After all, the image has to be downloaded onto your PC in order to be viewed, thus can simply be copied out of the browser cache, or someone could just take a printscreen of the image and do whatever with that. However, watermarks detract from the look of the image, so there's a price to be paid for such security... |
Sorry guys, I feel like I'm invisible. What about Flash which I mentioned as a viable alternative?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:39:14 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by Manic:
Indeed, they're the only way to prevent image theft. After all, the image has to be downloaded onto your PC in order to be viewed, thus can simply be copied out of the browser cache, or someone could just take a printscreen of the image and do whatever with that. However, watermarks detract from the look of the image, so there's a price to be paid for such security... |
Sorry guys, I feel like I'm invisible. What about Flash which I mentioned as a viable alternative? |
Flash is also easy to get around. Just do a screen capture. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:47:51 AM · #13 |
Well, it's a better alternative than disabling right-clicking.
It is possible to make it more difficult to allow screen capture by using code that continually empties the clipboard. It's possible to get around it, but again this could cause other problems to people who are using the clipboard innocently for other stuff. It is an option though.
I'm of the opinion that it's better to have a small risk of photos being stolen than to deface them with watermarks.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 06:48:03.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 06:51:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Well, it's a better alternative than disabling right-clicking.
It is possible to make it more difficult to allow screen capture by using code that continually empties the clipboard. It's possible to get around it, but again this could cause other problems to people who are using the clipboard innocently for other stuff. It is an option though.
I'm of the opinion that it's better to have a small risk of photos being stolen than to deface them with watermarks. |
Screen capture is one key press. Crop in photoshop is one key press and a mouse stroke. Not really a better alternative. Just another equivalently easy to bypass alternative.
PrtScr; File New; Ctrl+V; c
[I think I just violated the DMCA but publishing a circumvention device!]
and your image is copied. Not really a high bar and certainly not worth breaking no doubt many things with trying to introduce flash to the mix.
Any code you want to put in the web site is easily bypassed. If you want me to see the image, I've already copied it. It's as simple as that. Obnoxious code like continually emptying the clipboard is annoying, intrusive and also simple to disable/ work around.
The only thing that works (aside from the fact that people are breaking the law anyway) is to obscure the image to the point of it not being viewable. If you can see it, you can trivially copy it. The other alternative is not to post images you are worried about being stolen to web sites.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 06:59:24. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:04:12 AM · #15 |
| Why not using digital watermarks? You can't see them, so there is no degradation of the veiwable image. Digimarc is just one of the companies that offers this. Currently DPC does not allow the use of these for challenge entries if I am not mistaken. I may be wrong on this. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:09:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Why not using digital watermarks? You can't see them, so there is no degradation of the veiwable image. Digimarc is just one of the companies that offers this. Currently DPC does not allow the use of these for challenge entries if I am not mistaken. I may be wrong on this. |
and only $499 a year if you want it to be useful for finding people copying your images. Always struck me as snake oil, unless you had some lawyers following around behind you to get some money out of the 'abusers' or you were watermarking fullsize images that might get lifted somehow.
Most of the dpchallenge 'thefts' I've seen are teen bloggers, not exactly the motherlode for payouts.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 07:28:08. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:22:34 AM · #17 |
Digital watermarks are (in my understanding of them) only useful in proving that the image is yours, rather than deterring others from stealing it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:41:35 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Digital watermarks are (in my understanding of them) only useful in proving that the image is yours |
And tracking images that are yours. A simple web search that can be set up to run automatically will locate every image and where it is posted. And $499 a year is not a lot of money for D&L to spend IMO to protect our images considering the number of paid members and the number of images actually posted to this site. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:51:39 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Digital watermarks are (in my understanding of them) only useful in proving that the image is yours |
And tracking images that are yours. A simple web search that can be set up to run automatically will locate every image and where it is posted. And $499 a year is not a lot of money for D&L to spend IMO to protect our images considering the number of paid members and the number of images actually posted to this site. |
$499 per user I would expect. You'd have to apply your own digimarcs in photoshop when you saved the JPEG, prior to submitting them, then pay digimarc to search/track for you.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 07:53:17. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:54:20 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Digital watermarks are (in my understanding of them) only useful in proving that the image is yours |
And tracking images that are yours. A simple web search that can be set up to run automatically will locate every image and where it is posted. And $499 a year is not a lot of money for D&L to spend IMO to protect our images considering the number of paid members and the number of images actually posted to this site. |
$499 per user I would expect. |
That would only be if you wanted to track your own images. DPC could be the user as the challenge images are in their perpetual care and control and are non-editable and non-removable by the actual photographers. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 07:58:01 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That would only be if you wanted to track your own images. DPC could be the user as the challenge images are in their perpetual care and control and are non-editable and non-removable by the actual photographers. |
True, though I doubt they want to batch process every submission in photoshop to add watermarks. D&L are pretty hands off already, without asking them to photoshop a few thousand pictures per week. Never mind the howls of complaint for introduced JPEG artefacting (real or imagined ;) )
Anyway, the current problem doesn't appear to be tracking - enough are being caught that finding them isn't the problem. There just isn't much you can do when you find it, other than bitch and moan at admins who may or may not care.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 07:59:40. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 08:02:33 AM · #22 |
Well I don't see defacing images with watermarks as a valid alternative.
I believe disabling right-clicks is not a good solution.
That leaves a very simple Flash script to put off the casual thief.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:05:39.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 08:10:37 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Well I don't see defacing images with watermarks as a valid alternative.
I believe disabling right-clicks is not a good solution.
That leaves a very simple Flash script to put off the casual thief. |
Show me a flash image. In two minute I will have it posted back up here for you to see. That easy and I'm not all that well versed in such things. Do you really think that would deter anyone over at DA from taking something? |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 08:16:28 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Well I don't see defacing images with watermarks as a valid alternative.
I believe disabling right-clicks is not a good solution.
That leaves a very simple Flash script to put off the casual thief. |
It really is no better than right-click disabling.
In many ways worse and neither are in any real way effective. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 08:18:30 AM · #25 |
Even a watermark can be cloned out by someone who really wants to steal an image. Once a photo is on the net, it can be stolen. End of story. A Flash script just makes someone work a little harder to steal a photo. It's quick and easy to implement. This thread is about protecting images by disabling right-click. Using Flash is a better way to do this.
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 06:36:33 PM EDT.
