| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2006 02:01:19 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by _eug:
Ruh roh! Shaggy... Ken's up to no good. |
And like that's different from like any other day like how, scoob? |
I don't row. How? ;) |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:18:15 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
This to me is LOST REVENUE.
|
Really, it's only lost revenue if these folk would buy a copy of your print if they had to. More likely they will find somewhere else to get an image from.
Originally posted by nomad469:
I do not have right click disabled today. I will tommorow. If a client wants to use a image as a wallpaper or a profile pic or a pattern for a frigging neddlepoint they are going to BUY it (I am offering personal use licenses at the same price as my 8X10s).
|
You know, most of the myspace crew will be direct hot-linking your images from your site, and not even having to take the time to save them.
I looked through my weblogs the other day, people were actually linking directly to images on my site of cheap plastic stuff and using them on their pages with the copyright text still showing. These folk don't even recognise what they are doing as being wrong, they'd consider a disabled right-click button as being a mere blip in their path to getting another image. What they wouldn't ever, ever, do is hand over hard cash to use your image as profile pic of the day, or filler for a blog entry.
So by all means put a disable-right-click script up. The most it's likely to do though is give you a vague warm fuzzy feeling - I doubt that you will stop any image stealing, and you may well deter other, real, custom and revenue from folk who believe that it makes your site look unprofessional.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 02:18:32. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:22:43 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by nomad469:
This to me is LOST REVENUE.
|
Really, it's only lost revenue if these folk would buy a copy of your print if they had to. More likely they will find somewhere else to get an image from.
Originally posted by nomad469:
I do not have right click disabled today. I will tommorow. If a client wants to use a image as a wallpaper or a profile pic or a pattern for a frigging neddlepoint they are going to BUY it (I am offering personal use licenses at the same price as my 8X10s).
|
You know, most of the myspace crew will be direct hot-linking your images from your site, and not even having to take the time to save them.
I looked through my weblogs the other day, people were actually linking directly to images on my site of cheap plastic stuff and using them on their pages with the copyright text still showing. These folk don't even recognise what they are doing as being wrong, they'd consider a disabled right-click button as being a mere blip in their path to getting another image. What they wouldn't ever, ever, do is hand over hard cash to use your image as profile pic of the day, or filler for a blog entry.
So by all means put a disable-right-click script up. The most it's likely to do though is give you a vague warm fuzzy feeling - I doubt that you will stop any image stealing, and you may well deter other, real, custom and revenue from folk who believe that it makes your site look unprofessional. |
how does it make it look unprofessinal? sure there are ways around it but unprofessional? so if you go into Best Buy and see they have video cameras and a security system you think they are unprofessional? sure you can steal easily steal stuff but it does deter some theives. almost all retail stores have some sort of theft deterent so they are all unprofessional? some stores have theft deterent systems that make it more difficult to look at thier product i'll agree. how would the world be if the whole world worked on the honor system? theft deterent systems deter small time or casual thieves. right-click disable does the same.
My site only has it disabled on the pictures so as not to hurt the viewers browseing experience. at the very least thieves have to work harder. I do this mainly because i have larger photos on my site and don't want to have watermarks. I know people will still take them if they really want to. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:37:31 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by gayle43103:
Ya know, I don't know a thing about web design or anything else about creating a website. ... |
Gayle - Some good info/help available here at this resource.
W3Schools.com |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 09:33:31 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
how does it make it look unprofessinal? sure there are ways around it but unprofessional?
|
I see it as unprofessional because I see right-click-disable scripts (and I'm talking primarily here about ones that affect the button globally rather than just for pictures) as being akin to flashing text boxes and scrolling marquees. The general fair of someone who has just found that they can create a website and wants to stuff it as full of "useful" things as possible. Maybe it's just me who sees this, but I doubt it.
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
so if you go into Best Buy and see they have video cameras and a security system you think they are unprofessional? sure you can steal easily steal stuff but it does deter some theives. ... right-click disable does the same.
|
Right-click disable is *not* the same. The introduction of video cameras and other such anti-theft devices into stores does not alter the normal course of shopping in any way for the shopping who is not intent on stealing. The same cannot be said for globally disabling the right-click button on web sites. This detrimentally affects the browsing experience for *everyone*, not just image thieves.
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
My site only has it disabled on the pictures so as not to hurt the viewers browseing experience. at the very least thieves have to work harder. I do this mainly because i have larger photos on my site and don't want to have watermarks. I know people will still take them if they really want to. |
Fair enough. I have no particular arugment against disabling the button when it is over a specific picture - the context menu there generally has less functionality. Whilst I don't believe that this will achieve much, it is far less intrusive than the scripts that turn off the button for the whole site. Sadly though, where these scripts are used, it tends to be the whole-site versions rather than the image-only ones. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 11:06:38 AM · #131 |
Browsing some past threads and ran into this one. It was in 'Website Suggestions' forum area for DPChallenge. Appropriate reference for the current one I think. Actually, it's just more stuff to read. ;^)
Checkbox for "right-click protect" |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 11:54:27 AM · #132 |
There's no way to protect an image from a knowledgeable thief if it can be displayed on a browser. However, you can keep the average AOLer from stealing it.
Some use a transparant GIF over the image, so the right click will get an empty image.
Others slice and dice thier image. I wonder if you can cut out the words "copyright 2006 your name" and use the two images (the part outside the letters and the part inside the letters as two slices?
Of course, this does not protect you from a screen capture (like printscreen). |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 01:02:16 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
....the analogy you make about walking in and depriving you of your physical asset is not the same as taking a copy of the image....
....most of the people who copy the images would never buy them anyway, so I don't see it as "lost revenue"....
...Personally I think if some people put the amount of effort into producing and marketing your products as they do trying to prevent little Susie Myspace from using their cool image on her website, they would be much better served. To me it is about the amount of time and energy spent to attempt to solve a problem that really may have little or no bearing on the success or failure of your business....
|
I really agree with Art here.... (must be why I am quoting him :-D )
I have been working with photographic images all my adult life at some professional level. I ran an ad agency..used images there. I headed up the marketing department for a big manufacturer...thousands of product photographs there. I worked for a big media corporation...thousands of photos bought, shot, whatever. And now I work for another company that has a photographic division that I consult for.
In all those endeavors, with all the photos I have handled (look at my photos at this site to get a glimpse of the wide range of photos I work with) internet pilfers are just not part of the thought process.
My only point is. If someone like me who is in the industry has not been worried about it I can't see why others are so pre-occupied about it. Will you get some myspace pilfers..yep. Will even pros like ad agencies use an image from time to time to mock up something...absolutely. Will the competition use your images to copy and shoot them themself...oh yeah. Does any company in the process of making a living have shrinkage? Part of the world we live in.
My only advice. Control what you can and what has value. Your ability to shoot a photo. I have always found that clients (people who pay for the photo services ) are the ones to best protect the rights of their photo. It has always been best to make a living charging for the performance of services rendered (the photography) than managing the rights of the photo yourself.
If you are so worried about photo rights, watermark what you put on the web, put your copyright info on your site and forget about it. If you have so much work on the net that you find it a full time job to manage it...Go to Getty or anybody else and have them worry about it. That is why photo management companies exist.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 13:04:52. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:34:27 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
... Personally I think if some people put the amount of effort into producing and marketing your products as they do trying to prevent little Susie Myspace from using their cool image on her website, they would be much better served. To me it is about the amount of time and energy spent to attempt to solve a problem that really may have little or no bearing on the success or failure of your business. ... |
This is similar to my thinking -- although for a different reason. As I see it, paranoia and egotism (amoung others) are the bugbears of creativity. To be creative a person must place a part of themselves (large or small) into something else and then let go of it so it exists on its own. Those fearful others will take their work will be unable to place a part of themselves in it, while those who love themselves (or their work) too much will be unable to let it be on its own.
David
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:28:42 AM · #135 |
Related to some of the conversation in this thread about the concerns of images being stolen/used via right-click.
Copyrights and wrongs: an easy to understand guide to copyright laws
Funny. The following quote came from the linked article, and I saw in this thread earlier the same example used. ;^)
"If you wouldn't take it from a gallery without paying for it, you shouldn't take it from a Web site."
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:42:22 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by gayle43103:
I don't understand why disabling the right click is "unprofessional". I don't want anyone downloading the images I have on my website to reprint. This is the whole reason why I have prices on them so I can sell them. Could someone or all of you give me your versions on this topic.
Thanks....g
PS Its apparent that I'm having a bad english day. See title |
There is a multitude of ways to by-pass the right click. One can often simply just turn off JavaScript. One can view source and find the URL of the image.
Trust me...
I've done it myself. I've had enough friends suckered by fine print.
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 09:43:46. |
|
|
|
08/06/2006 04:35:35 PM · #137 |
| Bumping this for those who care to discuss it again. |
|
|
|
08/06/2006 04:48:42 PM · #138 |
Can we please lock this thread. I got a bit of hostility over it. If someone else would like to reopen a new thread, that's fine.
g
|
|
|
|
09/14/2006 08:32:35 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by ibkc:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I have all mine in flash galleries (on my currently soon to be not so crappy as it currently is site), so I guess that means that NetZero ppl would just skip mine alltogether? Or do those load fast enough? |
Honestly, I don't bother with flash web pages. Because whenever I go there it automatically loads them at 20% quality. Then, there's no way whatsoever to get them load full quality without a lot of effort. The only way to do it would be to empty my browser cache file, open the setting of netzero high speed, and set all images to load at 100%, then go back to the website, and fix everything back when I get through. |
How about you get a real internet connection - it's 2006 after all. I mean, you might as well cook your dinners over a fire pit and walk your 6 miles to work. |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 08:37:22 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
How about you get a real internet connection - it's 2006 after all. I mean, you might as well cook your dinners over a fire pit and walk your 6 miles to work. |
What works for you does not work for everyone else.
There are plenty of places around the world, including many areas within the United States that does not have broadband access available or the cost of broadband access is simply more than someone is willing to pay. |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 09:26:32 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have read this thread with some interest and I have some feelings on the subject based on my expirences.
I have a commercial web site. I post watermarked proofs of both event shoots and portrait sessions on the site for SALES purposes. Right now I can go to Trabe.net Zanga or myspace and find at least 75 of my images scattered about.
This to me is LOST REVENUE.
I do not have right click disabled today. I will tommorow. If a client wants to use a image as a wallpaper or a profile pic or a pattern for a frigging neddlepoint they are going to BUY it (I am offering personal use licenses at the same price as my 8X10s).
Some have said that they dont have a problem with personal use I am getting to the point that I do. I have had a person that did a session with me (paid the sitting fee)and didn't order prints. There are 8 images on their myspace site. Using the logic of the poster that talked about personal use this would be ok right ? I think not ... this is theft of services in my mind. (if shey had actually purchased prints I would have a slightly different view I guess) BTW I have sent her a email explaining copyright and asking her to remove the images or purchase personal use licenses for the images.
You cant go in to a store and take a picture of a greeting card and slap it up on your myspace profile with out paying for it... why should I give away my work.
I know that there is a advertising benefit that is why I have made the watermark non-obtrusive BUT I think that it gets to the point that the loss outweighs the benefit.
this is just my 2 cents |
Realisticly - anyone who wants to steal a picture off the internet will - whether you have right click disabled or not. There are so many ways around it. On the other hand there are many legitimate reasons to right click - even on an image e.g. zoom...
I tried disabling right click on my site - and quickly found it made navigation painful. My solution : smallish images with nice big watermarks - if anyone steals my images they comes with free advertising for me :D
My pricing is structured so that my clients always pay for some prints (or equivalent $$$ if they only want digital files). If they don't want to spend that much they can have their photos taken by Kmart. Really you don't loose anything by turning that sort of customer away - you can't make a living from them anyway -well I can't. Are there enough hours in the week for you to make a living from sitting fees alone? How much would it cost you to attract that volume of customer?
As far as I am concerned my customers have paid for the web sized images I put up - in fact I often email proofs to them. If they wants prints or full sized images - that costs extra... |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 04:45:19 PM · #142 |
Eugene - Thanks for the link redirection. :) I was considering responding in the other thread about the right-click scenario but didn't want to see that get totally hijacked.
What about watermarks? I use ShutterPoint for sales (please use my ShutterPoint link banner in profile - $$$ Thanks!) and they have a watermark that you can configure yourself (or use their default) that when applied just overlays the image.
Why couldn't DPC automate something like that here? While the challenge is active obviously you wouldn't want the distraction, but afterwards it wouldn't be bad if done discreetly. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 04:57:54 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
I don't understand why disabling the right click is "unprofessional". I don't want anyone downloading the images I have on my website to reprint. This is the whole reason why I have prices on them so I can sell them. Could someone or all of you give me your versions on this topic.
Thanks....g
PS Its apparent that I'm having a bad english day. See title |
Perhaps others previously expressed this view, but here is mine...
1-Most online images are 640 pixels or less and that is hardly a high quality image. Someone steals that and they won't be able to make a good print of any size or quality out of it, but reselling as a web graphic is a problem.
2-DPC is an educational site. I often will download a submission to look at it in Photoshop to investigate issues to make suggestions for improvement. If we could not do that it would seriously inhibit our ability to comment accurately.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 16:58:46.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 05:36:11 PM · #144 |
Disabling right click is only uh... one right click away. :)
Perhaps I said it before in this discussion, but when I browse galleries I open the thumbs that interest me in a new tab or window. I've been doing that for ten years like that. That is done via a right click option (in my case a button on my wacom pen). Disabling that is extremely annoying and I will try anything to disable it and if that doesn't work you just lost a customer.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 05:40:07 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I have all mine in flash galleries (on my currently soon to be not so crappy as it currently is site), so I guess that means that NetZero ppl would just skip mine alltogether? Or do those load fast enough? |
Many people, and not just NetZero users, will completely skip photos hosted in flash galleries.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 05:40:07 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
you might as well cook your dinners over a fire pit and walk your 6 miles to work. |
Just do that one day this month, seriously, you have no idea how refreshing that is.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 05:40:40 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I have all mine in flash galleries (on my currently soon to be not so crappy as it currently is site), so I guess that means that NetZero ppl would just skip mine alltogether? Or do those load fast enough? |
Many people, and not just NetZero users, will completely skip photos hosted in flash galleries. |
Flash galleries suck beyond belief.
|
|
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: 09/17/2025 06:44:37 PM EDT.
