Disable right click....why is wrong?

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

07/23/2006 09:28:14 PM · #103

Ok seriously, I don't want you all to think I'm a b#tch. Really I'm not and yes I use the right click myself to open new pages and such. Rarely and yes I'm saying I have right clicked on a photo to use it as my background. But to only use it as a background and I've had the same background for nearly 3 years now on this computer. I know, I can hear the grumblings now. "oh my god she's used right click to steal a photo!!" I have not used the photo to print out or distribute. Just to look at but I wish now I hadn't done that because I feel it was wrong to do. But that is MHO....doesn't have to be anyone elses. I'm so sorry I started such a rant on here....didn't mean to have it come out this way. Please forgive me.

g

Message edited by author 2006-07-23 21:29:13.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/23/2006 09:31:13 PM · #104

I don't have a problem with someone using my photo for their personal use, like a background ... just with any activity from which they profit themselves, or undermine my ability to profit from the image.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

07/23/2006 09:36:48 PM · #105

Originally posted by dwterry:

And so I'm just curious... for those who claim that doing so interferes with their normal activities. What is disabling the right click stopping you from doing?
Teach me.

Sometimes I want to check EXIF data. Or open a link in new tab or window. Thankfully, I can ignore that annoyance in Firefox:

terje

Apple iPhone

07/23/2006 09:54:40 PM · #106

Originally posted by GeneralE:

"undermine my ability to profile from the image" is my reason too!

Lozza

07/23/2006 10:01:51 PM · #107

This discussion has continued in a very healthy, respectful manner I must say, and I'd just like to point out that no-one here is defending the rights of a thief.

What's being defended by a lot of us though, is the right to browse the web unimpeded. Like, agree with, understand it or not, the fact remains that quite a lot of honest end-users find that script annoying.

As for the UI aspect, any web designer/developer worth their salt will want to ensure the best experience for the end-user. Good design (including cross-browser compatibility) and user friendliness is the only way to keep people browsing your site. A website is a marketing tool. A way to reach the masses and sell your product... and make money. Can't do that if you PO potential clients right from the get go. And you're wasting your time if you stubbornly refuse to listen to feedback.

Gayle, please don't take offense to this but, how much do you know about web design/development? How will you drive traffic to your site? How will your site be indexed by search engines? Right now, your site may as well be invisible. The only people to view it are those who have clicked through from your other thread at DPC and/or family and friends that you may have sent the link to. I've taken the liberty of viewing the source code and noticed that you lack keyword and description meta tags. Not to mention the title tags. These coding elements are of utmost importance for the site to be indexed correctly.

Until you sort out those issues, disabling right mouse click is the last thing you should be worrying about.

I'm not trying to be nasty or arrogant, just trying to give you some food for thought :) This has been a very interesting debate.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 10:18:31 PM · #108

Originally posted by Lozza:

Ya know, I don't know a thing about web design or anything else about creating a website. I'll admit that but I had to start somewhere. Keywords, title tags, all that stuff, no clue right now but I'm trying to learn. I would love it if someone could help me but some that I have asked, think I'm an idiot and why don't I pay to have someone create it for me. Well, I had to do it on my own. How did you see the source code? I don't even know how to do that. Guess I'm really sounding stupid right now. Most are probably wondering why I even tried. Yep your right, most are just seeing it because of DPC and who I emailed the link to. So does anyone care to help me out?? Take offense to what you say...nah, my shoulders are broad. Have been all my life. I just wanted for once in my life that even though some have said "no you can't do it" well dang it yes I can.

g

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

07/23/2006 10:23:00 PM · #109

Specific question usually produce the best results.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/23/2006 10:25:54 PM · #110

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Specific question usually produce the best results.

Ok...what is a source code, how do I get keywords, how do I get indexed by search engines? Let's start with those.

g

David.C

07/23/2006 10:33:20 PM · #111

Originally posted by gayle43103:

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Specific question usually produce the best results.

Ok...what is a source code, how do I get keywords, how do I get indexed by search engines? Let's start with those.

g

Source code is what is written to produce the web page. To see it (your going to hate this :), right-click on the page and click 'View Source'. Although you may have seen this while writing it (or at least had it written in the background by the program you used -- if any).

A keyword is just as it sounds, a word that is key in describing your site. Common search terms work best -- provided they fit the site.

David

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 10:34:10 PM · #112

Originally posted by gayle43103:

Source Code - All the code the browser interprets to render a page. You can see the source code of a page from your browser by clicking View > Page Source in Firefox or View > Source in IE.

Keywords - You "get" them by placing them in a meta tag in the head of your page. For example the keywords for the page you're looking at is...

You would just use whatever words were relevant to the page you're creating.

Search Engine - Search engines will find you on their own. However, you can usually speed up the process by dropping links to your site around the internet. Put it in your signature and profile, ask people to take a look at it in the forums you visit, submit your site to places like the Open Directory Project. The more places you have a link to your site the better the chance you'll get indexed quickly.

Lozza

07/23/2006 10:37:11 PM · #113

Originally posted by gayle43103:

a) You don't sound stupid at all. Everyone starts out a noob.
b) Yes, you most certainly CAN, but you can't rush and you have to have patience.
c) "How did you see the source code?", Well... right mouse click of course! ;-D In the context menu, there's an option to view page source.

It's difficult to help without actually handing you a template with all the blanks filled in and a step by step manual on how to update content thereafter. The best thing you can do for yourself, as a noob, is to build a site using FrontPage (this is not the best html software, but will do as a basic learning tool for now). You'll be able to view source code as you go along and you'll have the help files and tutorials at your disposal. I'm assuming of course, that you have MS Office...?

Try playing around with that for a while. Also, when you feel a little more confident, Photoshop has a good photo gallery utility that generates the html as well, so you could play around with that too.

But keep at it and eventually you'll begin to understand what works and what doesn't.

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

07/23/2006 10:53:05 PM · #114

ok...first of all can we not call me a noob. My boss uses that alot and I find it a bit offensive. Sorry I may sound sensitive, well I am. Let's say novice. I have a ton of patience. I know this won't go gang busters right now. I have a 2 year plan for myself.

First, I right clicked and went to view source, nothing came up.

2nd, I put some keywords in and will do more tomorrow. Too tired right now.

thanks for the help

g

nomad469

Nikon D700

07/23/2006 11:09:08 PM · #115

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

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/23/2006 11:25:51 PM · #116

You read the thread with some interest and yet you've come away with the belief that disabling right clicking does anything to protect the image. The point made again and again here was it, at best, doesn't prevent people from taking the photo and at worst annoys people with legitimate right click uses. By all means charge what you want, put a more obtrusive watermark, take measures against hotlinking, etc just don't think removing the ability to right click is going to protect your images.

nomad469

Nikon D700

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

07/23/2006 11:56:43 PM · #117

I do not think that it will PREVENT anything... (I have been running around on the web since mosaic was the hot new app) I know better.
But that measure along with other things like prohibiting hotlinking, digimark and other items will help to protect my IP.

There has to be a balance between usability and security. Right click and click-drag are the bain of rights management. If there was a effective way to secure MY images and maintain YOUR user experience I would be willing to do that...

Here is the bottom line ... you will not be walking into my studio... grabbing print off the wall and telling me that "its okay... I need it to spruse up my hallway. After all it is for my "personal" use. One of two things will happen...You will be handing me a credit card and I will be giving you the print and a recipt or you will have a stay at the Greybar Hilton. I see no difference on the web.

07/24/2006 12:58:22 AM · #118

Originally posted by nomad469:

Just to play a little devil's advocate (and make lots of new friends, I'm sure) -- 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 - I scoff at the same analogy now embedded on all DVD's you buy or rent - stealing a purse, stealing a car, kidnapping the Governer's baby - same as copying a DVD - uh, ok.

And the "lost revenue" issue while it may have some basis in fact (as in the example you gave about someone you photo'd and not wanting to buy prints but using them on the website), 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.

Now I'm sure it pisses you off when you see your image used without permission and I do think that warrants a brief communication to the offender and I also think you should take whatever steps you think are necessary to prevent casual copying if you feel that strongly about it.

This is of course just my opinion as an observer of these situations and as I said previously, I am not making a living off these things, so my opinion probably shouldn't matter much. Just food for thought or fanning the flames, depending on how passionate you are about the issue.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2006 01:11:39 AM · #119

Art, I mean Ken, is right and I have to agree - maybe because just like him, I don't make a living or earn from my photos. But that said, disabling the right-click would more likely deter hobbyist to save and use your photos as wallpapers more than anything else. The *real* thief would know many other methods to leech your photos off. You should know that, if someone can see the image, means he can copy it depending on whichever method he knows.

By the way, I've been stealing and directly linking to Art's images for awhile now - he's never given me a nasty look yet, what a generous guy :p

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/24/2006 01:16:54 AM · #120

Originally posted by crayon:

By the way, I've been stealing and directly linking to Art's images for awhile now - he's never given me a nasty look yet, what a generous guy :p

I am grateful for your short memory. :)

David.C

07/24/2006 01:18:48 AM · #121

Originally posted by nomad469:

... Here is the bottom line ... you will not be walking into my studio... grabbing print off the wall and telling me that "its okay... I need it to spruse up my hallway. After all it is for my "personal" use. One of two things will happen...You will be handing me a credit card and I will be giving you the print and a recipt or you will have a stay at the Greybar Hilton. I see no difference on the web.

The difference is that you don't own the web. Participation in the web, as it stands now, is very similar to talking on a corner -- everyone can hear what you say and there is no expectation of privacy. By putting an item on the web, you are giving the right to download it -- not the right to use it as they see fit, but that is another matter entirely.

Conventionally, the proofs were handed to the client, with the photographer present -- but I wonder how many photographers would have mailed the proofs to the client to decide. Yet that is essentially the same as putting the proofs on the web for the client to look over.

The last time I had professional portraits done for myself was my senior pictures. I was given the proofs and was free to do with them as I wish -- give them out, put them in a photo album, whatever. That is just what I did with them -- bought some as well, BTW. Not trying to stir the pot, but how is your client putting the online proofs in her online photo album or sharing them with online friends any different.

David

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2006 01:20:16 AM · #122

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by crayon:
By the way, I've been stealing and directly linking to Art's images for awhile now - he's never given me a nasty look yet, what a generous guy :p

I am grateful for your short memory. :)

I'm using that as a "trophy" or sorts, hehe...
as long as it doesn't turn into something bizzarely obscene, I'm leaving that link there - now show me what you've got! ;p

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/24/2006 01:34:46 AM · #123

Originally posted by crayon:

as long as it doesn't turn into something bizzarely obscene

Hmmmmm....

_eug

Nikon D50

07/24/2006 01:50:10 AM · #124

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by crayon:
as long as it doesn't turn into something bizzarely obscene

Hmmmmm....

Ruh roh! Shaggy... Ken's up to no good.