Disable right click....why is wrong?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/23/2006 04:58:43 PM · #77

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm quite proud of being in the minority, actually. I'm quite proud of the fact that in the 10 years I've been on the net. I've been virus free inspite of going years in some cases without running or even having installed AntiVirus software.

I'm quite proud to not follow the herd and having the ability to surf the way I like. I used to block popups and ads using Proxomitron before Browsers included popup and ad blockers, and I don't owe anything to website developers (which I used to be) for not wanting to have my web experience muddled.

With Greasemonkey I can rewrite any website I like to how I like. It shifts the balance from the developers to the users. Freedom or follow the herd? No Moo! coming from this mouth.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

It's a website developers option to design as they see fit. If it's a problem for you personally, then don't go back to that site anymore. Pretty simple really. ;^)

A sentiment I definitely share. ;)

mist

Canon EOS-60D

07/23/2006 05:14:37 PM · #78

Originally posted by glad2badad:

It's a website developers option to design as they see fit. If it's a problem for you personally, then don't go back to that site anymore. Pretty simple really. ;^)

Well absolutely. If a developer wants to develop a site in a way that will discourage visitors, then more power to them. Definitely seems simple to me.

bod

07/23/2006 05:23:23 PM · #79

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by bod:
I also use the right mouse button to navigate/open new tabs/search/god knows what else, and most people who disable right click seem to do it to their entire site, not just the images.

Mine is only affecting images. You're welcome to try out my site and tell me if disabling the right button is hurting your user experience in any way. (again, I just want to learn what it is people are complaining about)

That's better than 99% of the other sites I've seen blocking right clicks - heck, my context menu even comes up after the reminder.

Interestingly, right click->save as won't save a copy of the photo anyway, so the extra "protection" is pointless. Unfortunately, this also renders the Zoom Image function on my context menu useless (as well as annoying to get to). Not too bad on your site as you provide nice large versions, but not everybody does.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/23/2006 07:06:27 PM · #80

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by David.C:
... What is really troubling is that after all that has been said here about how useful the right-click menu is for honest activities -- you still consider anyone that wants to be able to right-click on your website a thief. And that is just sad -- I hope you get well soon. :(

David

Sorry to see that YOU feel that way. ;^) So sad for you indeed...

Not really -- haven't noticed that I am missing anything by leaving and not going back to the sites that insist on making my visit suit them.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

BTW, what browser are you using that you find right-clicking on an image so useful?

Canon EOS-20D

07/23/2006 07:15:09 PM · #81

Originally posted by gayle43103:

Several of you put how to steal someone's work. Don't you feel the least bit guilty?

Why should we feel guilty for understanding that disabling right click does absolutely nothing to protect your images? I know that coming through the windows is one way to break into a house, should I feel guilty about knowing that? Why should being realistic be guilt-inducing?

Originally posted by glad2badad:

For all of you pooh-poohing a website developers option to disable the right-click do you find yourself in the minority? Example, using a browser other than the still, industry dominant Internet Explorer?

It's a website developers option to design as they see fit. If it's a problem for you personally, then don't go back to that site anymore. Pretty simple really. ;^)

Personally, I found it equally annoying when I used IE. That being said, it's absolutely the developer's option to do whatever they like (right down to the flashing animations and auto-play midi). I have no problem leaving and not returning to a site. But if they ask for opinions about their site, isn't it equally within our rights to mention how annoying we find it? I figured that was the kind of thing that people wanted to know when they asked for site feedback.

terje

Apple iPhone

07/23/2006 07:38:14 PM · #82

If the majority of your visitors are photographers, computer-friendly people or just young, I'd say it doesn't help much at all. Go with watermarking and low-res.

No matter how annoying it is, I believe it helps. I get a ton of e-mails asking how they can "download" the photo, and if having disabled right-click gives me 10% more business from people who otherwise would just download a photo for an AD, presentation, etc. I think it's worth it.

That being said, watermarking is the best way to go, maybe in a combination with a CSS (c) overlay.

I'm suprised over how many people I know that do not know how to do screenprint, pick out the URL from the source, just look through the cache or just disable javascript. They are the primary reason I disabled right-click on my page, and if you don't like it - don't re-visit. :-)

Cheers!

edit: beer typ-O. }:-]

Message edited by author 2006-07-23 19:39:23.

peroty

Canon PowerShot SD1000

07/23/2006 07:49:01 PM · #83

I'm sure this has been said before...

However, for every way (usually javascript) there is to disable right clicking, there is a way to defeat it.

1. Turn off javascript in your browser.
2. View the source code and grab the image URLs from there.

The only way to prevent theft 100% is to watermark and watermark well so it cannot be removed.

There is a balance between security and art. An image obscured by watermark is not as nice to look at (obviously) however it's also easier to swipe.

Whenever you post anything to a public place (or private, non-password-protected) place on the internet there is always a chance it may get swiped. Although there is a lot of this happening, in the grand scheme of things it's only a very, very few people.

So show your work, show it proudly, and if you do see it stolen or get reports of it being stolen, contact the thief, but also contact the site where the work is being displayed/sold and tell them about it. They're more apt to do something about it than the thief since well, they did steal it already.

Don't let the few bad apples out there prevent you from sharing your art with the world.

I come at this from a photographer, poet, designer and have seen my words specifically being crossposted on ad blogs all over, usually with my credit still attached, which I don't know if it's any better or worse...
So I know what it feels like to have your work reposted and stolen.

07/23/2006 07:49:38 PM · #84

Originally posted by David.C:

Originally posted by gayle43103:
I guess I'm really troubled but the amount of people that feel so insulted that right click is disabled. Just because you can view a monet or renoir in a museum, that doesn't mean you have the right to take it. Just because it is on someone's website, doesn't give you the right to take it. It was someone else's hard work that put it there. I guess the masters shouldn't have painted their great works. If that would have happened, we wouldn't be here. Honestly, through the great artist in time, we have developed our skills. The have passed their knowledge on to us. Why can't we just admire someone's work and if so inclined, buy it. Its as if to say what is mine, isn't mine, if I put it out there, its your's too. What ever happened to honesty? What ever happened to admiration? What ever happened to morals? Several of you put how to steal someone's work. Don't you feel the least bit guilty? I never really realized or maybe I'm just naive or maybe I'm just delusional, but this is such a cut throat society. Its sad really. Just when you think you have something really good, someone can claim it as their's and reap the glory. I take pride in what I do. Hopefully it will stay mine.

g

What is really troubling is that after all that has been said here about how useful the right-click menu is for honest activities -- you still consider anyone that wants to be able to right-click on your website a thief. And that is just sad -- I hope you get well soon. :(

David

I'm feeling just fine but I feel that there is a great number of people out there that use the right click to steal. Don't patronize me. Its my opinion. Unless that's not mine either. Cheers!

g

07/23/2006 07:52:45 PM · #85

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Thank you. My point exactly. I'm sure there will be plenty of people that will go to my site to look at my WORK not to see if the right-click is disabled.

g

07/23/2006 07:55:13 PM · #86

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by bod:
If I use my left mouse button, or have the No-Script extension installed, I never see your reminder.

That doesn't bother me. Again, it's only a reminder and - I know full well there are ways "around" the right-click block.

Originally posted by bod:
I also use the right mouse button to navigate/open new tabs/search/god knows what else, and most people who disable right click seem to do it to their entire site, not just the images.

Mine is only affecting images. You're welcome to try out my site and tell me if disabling the right button is hurting your user experience in any way. (again, I just want to learn what it is people are complaining about)

//www.dterryphotography.com

I don't see it hurting the experience at all.

g

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 07:57:37 PM · #87

Originally posted by mist:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

It's a website developers option to design as they see fit. If it's a problem for you personally, then don't go back to that site anymore. Pretty simple really. ;^)

Well absolutely. If a developer wants to develop a site in a way that will discourage visitors, then more power to them. Definitely seems simple to me.

I don't understand, how does it discourage visitors??? That comment is so confusing to me. If you are stricting going to a site in the hopes to undo it...that's strange to me.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

07/23/2006 07:58:37 PM · #88

Originally posted by gayle43103:

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by bod:
If I use my left mouse button, or have the No-Script extension installed, I never see your reminder.

That doesn't bother me. Again, it's only a reminder and - I know full well there are ways "around" the right-click block.

Originally posted by bod:
I also use the right mouse button to navigate/open new tabs/search/god knows what else, and most people who disable right click seem to do it to their entire site, not just the images.

Mine is only affecting images. You're welcome to try out my site and tell me if disabling the right button is hurting your user experience in any way. (again, I just want to learn what it is people are complaining about)

//www.dterryphotography.com

I don't see it hurting the experience at all.

I don't see it being disabled.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

07/23/2006 08:03:37 PM · #89

Originally posted by mist:

Part of the point I'm trying to make is that a web developer is going to build a site that suits a majority of users, which is still IE. For most IE visitors, disabling right-click on images isn't going to "discourage" them from visiting. The most grumbling is going to come from those that want to use the right-click to grab a copy of an image the "easy" way.

terje

Apple iPhone

07/23/2006 08:08:28 PM · #90

I guess we can all agree about one thing, protecting images online is hard. :-)

_eug

Nikon D50

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/23/2006 08:22:19 PM · #91

Originally posted by terje:

I guess we can all agree about one thing, protecting images online is hard. :-)

True dat.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/23/2006 08:43:01 PM · #92

Originally posted by gayle43103:

I don't understand, how does it discourage visitors??? That comment is so confusing to me. If you are stricting going to a site in the hopes to undo it...that's strange to me.

You seem to have not read the comments which include lists of what people use the right-click for other than to "steal" pictures. The whole point of this discussion has been that there are many useful things to do with that feature which are completely legal and ethical (and handy). The intent of the typical user is not to "undo" your site, but to navigate it conveniently using familar shortcuts. (BTW: I get equally PO'd at developers who putin features which work with only one specific browser.)

This is a classic "throw out the baby with the bathwater" situation.

Cars can be used as a getaway vehicle after a bank robbery. Shall we take away everybody's cars so it will be easier to catch bank robbers?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/23/2006 08:47:22 PM · #93

Originally posted by terje:

I guess we can all agree about one thing, protecting images online is hard. :-)

Not just hard -- impossible! The browser saves a copy to the viewers harddrive when they load the page -- nothing can prevent this.

---

Someone compared an online gallery with hanging prints in a 'brick-n-mortar' gallery. It's not a good comparison. A 'brick-n-mortar' gallery invites people in to look at the images and then leave. That is not what happens with an internet gallery. A closer approximation would be the gallery sending copies of the images to anyone that asks.

Trying to stop someone from 'saving a copy' of what is on a website shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the basic mechanics of the internet. Until the basic mechanics have been changed, it's not going to get any different than it is now.

David

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/23/2006 08:50:20 PM · #94

Originally posted by David.C:

The browser saves a copy to the viewers harddrive when they load the page -- nothing can prevent this.

Trying to stop someone from 'saving a copy' of what is on a website shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the basic mechanics of the internet. Until the basic mechanics have been changed, it's not going to get any different than it is now.

David

Perhaps if you save your images in "slices" it may be more difficult to piece it together from the cache files.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 08:59:54 PM · #95

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Perhaps if you save your images in "slices" it may be more difficult to piece it together from the cache files.

Which brings us back to the Print Scrn button again.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/23/2006 09:04:27 PM · #96

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps if you save your images in "slices" it may be more difficult to piece it together from the cache files.

Which brings us back to the Print Scrn button again.

Which should be too low resolution to do much with.

Why not take a picture of your monitor with your camera and get a 10MP copy?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 09:06:49 PM · #97

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Why not take a picture of your monitor with your camera and get a 10MP copy?

I'll bite, why not?

terje

Apple iPhone

07/23/2006 09:08:41 PM · #98

100x100pixels WITH watermarking should get the job done!

:-)

07/23/2006 09:12:07 PM · #99

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David.C:
The browser saves a copy to the viewers harddrive when they load the page -- nothing can prevent this.

Trying to stop someone from 'saving a copy' of what is on a website shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the basic mechanics of the internet. Until the basic mechanics have been changed, it's not going to get any different than it is now.

David

Perhaps if you save your images in "slices" it may be more difficult to piece it together from the cache files.

Tricks in erecting a super-structure are no substitute for laying a secure foundation.

From my perspective, the only viable course of action is to realize the internet is inherently not secure, and use it accordingly. This, accompanied by supporting a more secure infrastructure would make a more enjoyable experience for all.

Unfortunately, there are just as many voices (perhaps more) against the controls needed for security as there are those who see the need for it -- and all too often the same people are found on both sides. :(