| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2004 08:17:21 AM · #1 |
I've noticed a few posts popping up asking for protection of our images in the way of disabling right-clicking. As a web-designer, I have strong feelings against this, and they can be summed up nicely in these articles I Googled...
//www.tombraider4u.com/protection.shtml
//www.sitepoint.com/article/dont-disable-right-click
//www.internet-hosting-report.com/right-click.php
A quick look on the internet will show that there are thousands of similar sites which all campaign against disabling the right-click menu. I have had photos stolen on the Internet, and it is annoying... but disabling right-click is not the answer. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:35:22 AM · #2 |
Indeed - all that kind of thing does is annoy users without giving you anything other than the illusion of protection.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:03:03 AM · #3 |
| it doesnt stop anyone anyway, if they wanna steal the image all they have to do is look at the source code. or use some simple javascript to disable the anti-right click code. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:05:52 AM · #4 |
| If you see it on the screen, it's there to be grabbed. It's already in the system. Disabling right click will warn the person, but the bottom of the page does exactly the same. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:45:38 AM · #5 |
Looks like that 3rd site has copy-pasted the exact text from the 2nd. How ironic :P
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:49:07 AM · #6 |
Ok, let me turn this around...
If disabling is NOT the answer, what do you propose to help the situation? |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:56:14 AM · #7 |
I think a digital watermark hidden in the file, automatically created when they're uploaded, would be good.
"Baby Photo by Photographer. Uploaded at DPChallenge.com 01/09/2004"
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:56:39 AM · #8 |
Rob, the second page of the second link has 4 viable alternatives.
Originally posted by RobCoursey:
Ok, let me turn this around...
If disabling is NOT the answer, what do you propose to help the situation? |
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 11:00:50 AM · #9 |
My thinking is that if you suffer true monetary damage from have a 400x600 pixel image lifted you might need to rethink your business model.
400x600 might be useful for stock, but if your image is a "stock" shot, post it to a stock site instead of DPC and use a smaller resolution image, or insert a watermark.
400x600 won't cut it for nice prints, so if you're selling prints, no harm done. Not too many desktops these days are still at that low a resolution, so if someone lifts wallpaper, consider it flattery.
Finally, if I found one or two of my images on another site without permission I would write a cease and decist note to the appropriate parties. If that didn't work I'd move on and focus on taking my next great shot. I know my attitude is hurt more than my business model if an occasional image is lifted in such a tiny resolution.
If indeed your business model IS impacted by a small res image being lifted, then you should be able to financially justify the cost of electronic watermarking services. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 11:13:31 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
My thinking is that if you suffer true monetary damage from have a 400x600 pixel image lifted you might need to rethink your business model.
400x600 might be useful for stock, but if your image is a "stock" shot, post it to a stock site instead of DPC and use a smaller resolution image, or insert a watermark.
400x600 won't cut it for nice prints, so if you're selling prints, no harm done. Not too many desktops these days are still at that low a resolution, so if someone lifts wallpaper, consider it flattery.
Finally, if I found one or two of my images on another site without permission I would write a cease and decist note to the appropriate parties. If that didn't work I'd move on and focus on taking my next great shot. I know my attitude is hurt more than my business model if an occasional image is lifted in such a tiny resolution.
If indeed your business model IS impacted by a small res image being lifted, then you should be able to financially justify the cost of electronic watermarking services. Problem solved. |
I think the main concern might be with the picture being used for purposes such as those found in this thread.
This is unfair to the photographer as well as to any models in the photographs. I don't think the main concern is dollars lost in these cases. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 11:40:08 AM · #11 |
One of the techie magizines that I read features this utility. I am not totally against utilities such as this, but in the wrong hands...
//www.neowise.com/webpics/
Be afraid be very afraid. Seriously, this utility boasts being able to lift (all) images off even password protected sites.
Not much we can do but offer crappy resolution or watermark em.
As people have pointed out I don't hang out on right-click disable sites be cause they are frustrating. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 12:10:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
One of the techie magizines that I read features this utility. I am not totally against utilities such as this, but in the wrong hands...
//www.neowise.com/webpics/
Be afraid be very afraid. Seriously, this utility boasts being able to lift (all) images off even password protected sites.
Not much we can do but offer crappy resolution or watermark em.
As people have pointed out I don't hang out on right-click disable sites be cause they are frustrating. |
I don't think we need to worry about this utility here... it would take a LONG time even on broadband to download all our images, and would need a serious amount of HDD space. And why would someone want to do that? The most likely scenario is that they would only want a select few images... not the entire contents of the DPC site. So why do we need to be afraid? |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 12:14:38 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
...So why do we need to be afraid? |
I heard that in a movie somewhere, or maybe it was a cartoon. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 01:12:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I think the main concern might be with the picture being used for purposes such as those found in this thread.
This is unfair to the photographer as well as to any models in the photographs. I don't think the main concern is dollars lost in these cases. |
I absolutely aknowledge that it's annoying, although secretly I *do* think I'd feel some degree of flattery. But in the end, any form of security involves a compromise. To implement expensive, annoying, or labor-intensive changes to a site has a cost which must be compared to the cost of having your image "lifted." My feeling is that the cost of implementing any solution I've seen thus far exceeds the real cost of the "damage" done to the photographer.
Putting photography on the internet carries a risk with it. You can either live with that risk or work local craft shows. I just don't currently see the middle ground. (But again, I aknowledge that it's annoying!).
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 02:06:38 PM · #15 |
While the stealing is annoying and insulting to the artist, the most significant damage I see being done is to D&L and DPC. The viability of this website requires the photographers to be comfortable uploading images to it. I encourage D&L to take the appropriate measures to have the images removed from other sites, but I also agree with the above article when it points out that treating everyone like a criminal to protect against a few is quite insulting.
So, I encourage D&L to contact the offending sites, and if they won't remove them -- send them a bill. An outragious one, calculate the cost based on an estimated number of views that image has had on that site -- with the provision that should they wish to provide proof of the actual number of views the cost could be adjusted appropriately. It would work remarkably well, especially if sent by a CPA.
AFter all, it is DPC that is being stolen from, it is the right they have to display and use the imaages that is being violated -- the damage to the photographer falls under 'acceptable risk' as far as I am concerned -- we have all licensed our images to DPC, and by licensing them accept that they have been put out in the public.
Hit them where it hurts the most, but don't add even more insults to the photographers submitting here.
David
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 03:40:59 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
One of the techie magizines that I read features this utility. I am not totally against utilities such as this, but in the wrong hands...
//www.neowise.com/webpics/
Be afraid be very afraid. Seriously, this utility boasts being able to lift (all) images off even password protected sites. |
Whoa, now. This program doesn't do anything you can't do with your browser right now. It just makes it more convenient. The "password protected" thing doesn't mean 'cracking the passwords' or getting around them, just handling the authentication when you give it the username/password for the site.
And this is trivial to do with any of the numerous command-line download tools there are included even in a basic Linux installation. For instance, I could type: wget -m //www.somesite.com
and it would download (recursively) the entire web site to my hard drive. There is simply no way to avoid this. Caching web proxies store content as it passes through them, your browser stores images in a disk cache, and don't forget the PRINT SCREEN key in Windows that copies everything you see to the clipboard.
And, of course, the wildcard which is the 'analog hole'. Anything you can see with your eyes or hear with your ears can be digitized and saved in one way or another. 'Digital Rights Management' or more accurately, 'Digital Restrictions Management' simply can not succeed. |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 04:10:24 PM · #17 |
I just "lifted" a photo of mine from my portfolio, and printed it 4x6 and it looks pretty good. Using an online print service will get you an OK 8x10 from an image that is 600x400.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 05:08:01 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Using an online print service will get you an OK 8x10 from an image that is 600x400. |
Maybe if all you want is photo toilet paper. A new business opportunity for ezprints? |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 06:35:21 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just "lifted" a photo of mine from my portfolio, and printed it 4x6 and it looks pretty good. Using an online print service will get you an OK 8x10 from an image that is 600x400. |
Yup, I imagine at that size things would still look ok.
The thing is though ..... if someone is going to steal a photo and print it like that, and you did manage to set the web site so it could not be stolen (however that happened), would the person then go and buy the photo to use it?
I would suggest not.
Sure, images may be stolen like that, it is not good, but I doubt it costs anyone here any real money, as I think those people would not pay for a photo anyway, but just grab a different photo from somewhere else.
There is then the potential they may nlike it so much printed that they do want to buy a larger version ... well, we can hope ;)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 06:39:25 PM · #20 |
Erm, I beg to differ. Maybe this thread should have been called 'Why badly coded disabling of right clicks is bad"? I didn't look at the date these were written but javascript has come along way this past 12 months.
I mentioned this in another thread as one way of explaining to people that the image has a copyright and should not be copied. On its own it serves as another warning to those that might 'innocently' steal your image.
Lets pretend (for a moment) that your picture is a car.
Adding a no right click is like locking the doors when you leave it.
Putting a 'this car is alarmed' is like adding a visual copyright (no good for challenge entries)
Adding a hidden watermark is like installing a tracking device
I'm pretty sure some of you will come up with a better analogy but at the end of the day if your car is good enough somebody will find a way to steal it, but protecting your investment will deter the opportunists
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 06:42:10 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 06:52:45 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by terje:
watermarking! |
Certainly the way to go, but without visual warning as well there is more chance your car will be stolen it just makes it easier to prove the image is yours.
Ever seen the sign "Shoplifters will be prosecuted"? the sign is a deterrant and I doubt those shops have a higher rate of prosecution than those that don't display it (though maybe less thefts)and those with CCTV probably have even less thefts.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 06:54:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Ever seen the sign "Shoplifters will be prosecuted"? the sign is a deterrant and I doubt those shops have a higher rate of prosecution than those that don't display it (though maybe less thefts)and those with CCTV probably have even less thefts. |
Very clever thing one store that was having a problem with shop lifters did here (doubtless others have as well) was a full sized cardboard cutout of a cop telling you not to shoplift. Apparently it was very effective on the subconscious to scare people out of doing it :)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 07:28:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I mentioned this in another thread as one way of explaining to people that the image has a copyright and should not be copied. On its own it serves as another warning to those that might 'innocently' steal your image. |
The point is that it is annoying. VERY annoying, I despise websites that disable right-click. To use your analogy, it's not like looking your car doors. It's like enabling a motion actived megaphone that screams "rape!" everytime someone comes within 100 ft of it.
You think people will stop and look at your car to admire it? I'd say more likely go find a bat and disable your security system.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 07:32:44 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I mentioned this in another thread as one way of explaining to people that the image has a copyright and should not be copied. On its own it serves as another warning to those that might 'innocently' steal your image. |
The point is that it is annoying. VERY annoying, I despise websites that disable right-click. To use your analogy, it's not like looking your car doors. It's like enabling a motion actived megaphone that screams "rape!" everytime someone comes within 100 ft of it.
You think people will stop and look at your car to admire it? I'd say more likely go find a bat and disable your security system. |
I'm sorry but (using my flimsy analogy) if somebody wants to look at my car then thats fine but if they try the doors I'd prefer to tell them that the door is locked than let them climb in and mess around on the seats.
As for shouting rape, I go back to an earlier comment and its just bad coders that do 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: 08/30/2025 12:04:14 PM EDT.
