Checkbox for "right-click protect"

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/10/2006 08:18:43 AM · #26

look at how Corbis protect their images.

They don't - and they are selling them. If they haven't figured out how to block the analog hole, we aren't.

The only real way to do this effectively is to have a monitor that supports digital rights management. (Yes - a monitor - a CPU that supports it isn't enough)

Even then, someone could take a picture.

If you can see it, you can copy it. If it is digital you can copy it exactly.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:24:25.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

02/10/2006 08:19:42 AM · #27

Originally posted by Gordon:

It really is no better than right-click disabling.
In many ways worse and neither are in any real way effective.

I put my reasons at the top why a Flash script would be more effective than Javascript... can you list your reasons why it is no better?

02/10/2006 08:22:18 AM · #28

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Originally posted by Gordon:
It really is no better than right-click disabling.
In many ways worse and neither are in any real way effective.

I put my reasons at the top why a Flash script would be more effective than Javascript... can you list your reasons why it is no better?

Because it does nothing to stop someone who can press two keys copying the image. Because it potentially causes more problems with browsers. Because it requires people to use flash to view images - for no actual purpose. Because it inhibits the learning aims of the site.

Adding something that does nothing is not a useful feature. It really does nothing at all to stop people taking images. Nothing. I don't know that I can make that much clearer. I even listed the key presses to get around it 'PrtScr and ctrl-v'

Just adding something that doesn't work for the sake of adding it doesn't make sense.

Edit: maybe this will work. Here's my reasons for not using flash to protect images - I used essentially the same circumvention device to copy your argument that I'd use to copy a flash image. It took as long.

. 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.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:23:46.

02/10/2006 08:25:16 AM · #29

Originally posted by Gordon:

look at how Corbis protect their images.

They don't - and they are selling them. If they haven't figured out how to block the analog hole, we aren't.

From the Corbis site:

Corbis allows you to search for, view, and use Watermarked Images only as permitted below. If you have registered for a Corbis account and Corbis has approved your registration, you may be able to access Non-Watermarked Images, which shall be used only as permitted below.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/10/2006 08:27:13 AM · #30

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Gordon:
look at how Corbis protect their images.

They don't - and they are selling them. If they haven't figured out how to block the analog hole, we aren't.

From the Corbis site:

Corbis allows you to search for, view, and use Watermarked Images only as permitted below. If you have registered for a Corbis account and Corbis has approved your registration, you may be able to access Non-Watermarked Images, which shall be used only as permitted below.

Yeah - pretty much my point - the splash a huge corbis logo across the middle of the image. They don't right click protect, use flash (other than for flashy slideshows). But the majority of their stock images are downloadable with a logo drawn on them. They don't try to stop you saving them if you want to.

In fact, they want designers to download and use them for placements and the like - the logo isn't really an issue there. Here, we tend to want to see the images.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:27:32.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

02/10/2006 08:28:45 AM · #31

Do you ever find people taking offense to the way you argue a point? I wonder if this happens regularly...

Let's take your points one by one.
. Don't see why this makes Flash worse than Javascript. They both suffer with this issue.

. What problems? Flash is browser independent. In fact, Javascript works differently with different browsers and can be disabled in most browsers

. Almost everyone has Flash. Especially if an earlier version is used. For the purpose of making images *slightly* harder to steal.

. A fancy phrase, what does it mean? Perhaps you can elaborate.

. Okay Mr Patronising, like I said it makes images *slightly* harder to steal. I'm just explaining options at the moment. And it is that, an option. At least it stops casual users from saving it with a right click. It does actually do something.

Anyway, on that note I am not going to return to a thread where people don't know how to argue a point in a civil way.
Bob

Edit... this post makes no sense since you edited yours, it addresses the points you had listed in order.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:31:39.

bluenova

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

02/10/2006 08:29:01 AM · #32

Originally posted by Gordon:

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.

I think it could easily be setup as an automated process in imagemagick.

02/10/2006 08:30:58 AM · #33

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I'm not trying to be patronising. You asked for the reasons, I gave you your reasons back. Flash doesn't work on the machines I use at work for example. It has the same standards problems as javascript does.

It really doesn't do anything but annoy potential users. If someone wants to pinch an image, it's gone. Two key presses is not significantly different to right clicking. My mum even knows how to copy and paste screen shots. (and again, not being patronising, it's just the truth) so some 13 year old pinching an image for their blog isn't going to be phased by copying and pasting.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:33:49.

02/10/2006 08:31:22 AM · #34

Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by Gordon:

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.

I think it could easily be setup as an automated process in imagemagick.

I don't think they provide a unix plugin for digimarc.

02/10/2006 08:31:40 AM · #35

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Gordon:
look at how Corbis protect their images.

They don't - and they are selling them. If they haven't figured out how to block the analog hole, we aren't.

From the Corbis site:

Corbis allows you to search for, view, and use Watermarked Images only as permitted below. If you have registered for a Corbis account and Corbis has approved your registration, you may be able to access Non-Watermarked Images, which shall be used only as permitted below.

Yeah - pretty much my point - the splash a huge corbis logo across the middle of the image. They don't right click protect, use flash (other than for flashy slideshows). But the majority of their stock images are downloadable with a logo drawn on them. They don't try to stop you saving them if you want to.

In fact, they want designers to download and use them for placements and the like - the logo isn't really an issue there. Here, we tend to want to see the images.

But they are protected. And if someone steals an image from DPC they can probably expect little more then lip service. Steal one from Corbis and lip service takes on a whole new meaning.

They do protect their images.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

02/10/2006 08:34:33 AM · #36

Originally posted by nsbca7:

They do protect their images.

Sorry - wasn't clear enough. Yes they certainly do protect their images. But not by right-click blocking or using flash. Because it doesn't work. It's been debated for 10+ years on the web (which is maybe why I get short with hearing it one more time) but the solution is hardware.

If you can see it, you can copy it. So the only way to stop that is to obscure the image (too small a resolution/ big logo etc)

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 08:37:29.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

02/10/2006 08:42:48 AM · #37

I know the watermark can be cloned out by a dedicated theft but what if there was a watermark ONLY if you aren't a registered member (like when your not logged in and you see the advertisments) and don't advertise that the watermark will disappear if you register. Some will register simply to take the image but it may be enough of a deterant for most.

I found the most effective way to keep my images from being used on other site...I just take crappy shots and no one wants them :o)

nomad469

Nikon D700

02/10/2006 09:30:14 AM · #38

Hello my name is Dave and I am a right-clicker.

I admit it ... I have a directory of "stolen" images ... why? you might ask. Inspiration...education... examples.... many different reasons... for instance ... I have a model in studio... instead of trying to explain a shot or a look that I want I can go to the directory... and point to an image.

If I do a shot and I want my stylist to PS it in a certain way ... I can show her an example.

Or simply is I see something that kicks butt and I need a inspiration when "vision block" sets in.

I could have a bookmark list a mile long ... but why?

Am I using the images for some unethical reason...nope...am I publishing them ... nope ... are the images pubically available... yep...have I already downloaded it simply by virtue of viewing it...yep...check your browser cache... whats the issue...none.

I do have a major problem with lifting an image and claiming directly or indirectly by omission that it is yours...

With all of that said... I am totally against click block...BUT I have no problems with watermarks ... yes they can be cloaned out (and EXIF data can be removed)most lamers that steal an image and republish it as their own will not go through the trouble of doing that. I think that watermarks are far better at protection and does not inhibit fair use.

Just my couple of cents.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 09:35:39.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/10/2006 09:41:18 AM · #39

problem with that is you either make it prominant enough to obscure the image (such as corbis do) or you put it on the edge were it is simply cropped out (like getty do)

There really isn't a good answer to this, if you want to actually be able to see the image. Corbis & getty get away with it because their images are just a preview.

Here most people want to be able to see the images before voting on them. This makes watermarking a difficult proposition if we are supposed to judge the image on its merits.

Invisible watermarks only have value if you are willing to legally chase people stealing the images. To do this cost effectively is prohibitive, especially when most of the offendors are minors.

There isn't a good technical solution right now. If there was, the big companies would be using it that value their images highly. Legal avenues exist, particularly for commercial misuse, but that isn't really the main problem here.

Large amounts of money is being spent by many industries to solve this issue. The DMCA, the janus iniative from Microsoft, the DRM & GPL fights in the linux community. From what I understand of the plans from various hardware and software companies that are coming down the pipe, many people are going to be more unhappy with the solution than are unhappy with the current problem. It isn't going to be pretty. (i.e., HBO are in the middle of trying to get the government make it illegal for you to record/ time shift any of their shows. No TiVo, no PVR, no VHS. why ? So they can sell it back to you again and again)

Brave New World of copyright protection, coming soon to every media device near you.

Solutions such as right click block and flash that do nothing to stop copying for even the least technically minded people are not worth implementing because they make life harder for legitimate users and do nothing to stop even the simplest copying. There's a button on your keyboard that defeats both schemes with a single press - it isn't a tricky technical process.

Large watermarks defeat the purpose of the site, which is to share and look at images. Small or hidden watermarks don't offer any protection if they are easily removed or ignored.

I guess you could make the site pay only to view images. That'd at least make sure you knew the people who were copying the images to a group of a few thousand.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 09:44:55.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/10/2006 10:51:41 AM · #40

This is a BAD idea!! I have a lot of stuff on the right click menu - You have no right to disable the whole menu for an ineffective method to stop people stealing images.

Bottom line, if it's on a web site there are - by definitions - ways for anybody to get the picture. Besides, you cannot stop the right click for all users anyway.

02/10/2006 11:00:59 AM · #41

Originally posted by robs:

Right. In Safari I have spell check, among other things, that all that work on right click.

02/10/2006 11:07:31 AM · #42

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Right. In Safari I have spell check, among other things, that all that work on right click.

I don't disagree that blocking it is a bad idea, but the right button menu is usually context sensitive. You'd only be changing it's function over an image (which shouldn't let you spell check it anyway)

Right click blockers, while doing nothing useful, don't typically block actions on text unless they are really badly implemented.

Message edited by author 2006-02-10 11:08:25.

02/10/2006 11:09:19 AM · #43

Though on checking, the betterphoto.com right click blocker does block on clicking anywhere on the screen.

Then the menu pops up anyway, along with their dialog that doesn't stop anything.

Clever (!)

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/10/2006 11:11:55 AM · #44

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Right. In Safari I have spell check, among other things, that all that work on right click.

I don't disagree that blocking it is a bad idea, but the right button menu is usually context sensitive. You'd only be changing it's function over an image (which shouldn't let you spell check it anyway)

Right click blockers, while doing nothing useful, don't typically block actions on text unless they are really badly implemented.

On some sites the script is embedded in the header.

p3wiz

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/10/2006 11:15:31 AM · #45

my $0.02

I would suggest some protection could be implemented on the server side by D&L.

1) After voting automatically add copyright line to the provided .jpg so that when browsing images they all have the owner's name.
2) Display the image as 6 tiles. It would not stop someone from reassembling the image, but makes it harder.
3) Add some watermark information to the .jpg

marcellieb

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/10/2006 11:18:23 AM · #46

NO - Not right click protect. I save some of the images to my PC - simply to show my wife. She hasn't got internet and she loves photos - especially the ones from this site. I am not stealing them.