Images that you can't right click on?

[ewheeler20]

I have seen a few threads recently about people stealing their images from their website even with a huge watermark all over it. I am thinking about starting up a website myself soon and would like to use that feature where if you right click on the image it won't let you copy it or anything. I am relatively website-creation illiterate, so the answer may be way over my head, but I'm still curious. If not for me, maybe the answer will help somebody else.

Thanks!
-Eric

[Overread]

If someone can't right-click on the photo they can just use the "Prt-Scr" button on the keyboard to get a screenshot of the photo and then paste it into paint - cut it out and you've got the photo. You can also get around many of these by simply going to the web-cache on the computer and opening up the photo from there (since all images/web content is added to your computer when you view it online).

You can somewhat get around the latter by having a flash based website with slideshows and the like, though this can slowdown performance of the site for viewers on a slower connection.

[Jimconnerphoto]

If you want a solid chance at preventing theft of your images there is only one way to prevent someone from taking them. Don't put them online. If they are on a website they can be taken.

[Mark1]

Its true. Disableing right click is basicaly a "Please dont steal" stickey note. It will stop the lazy and honest. But will not stop someone who really wants to get the pictrure.

That said...I have it disabled on my site. But know it is not really stopping anything.

[x_tan]

Yet, I just screen capture / print to 'steal' if I really like the shoot.

[melanopsin]

A little javascript (not mine):


<script language="JavaScript">
<!-- Hide from older browsers
// No right click script v.2.5
// (c) 1998 barts1000.
// barts1000@aol.com
//http://fxcentral.webprovider.com
// Don't delete this header!

var message='This function is not available here ';

//Message for the alert box

// Don't edit below!

function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.mousedown);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
</script>

[Curtis N]

I think you gotta ask yourself, "Will I lose revenue if someone can violate my copyright on a 600 pixel image?" I mean, seriously, it's hard to justify fretting about this stuff.

Throw a watermark on it if you want, but if you're gonna lose sleep over this kind of thing, then web-based promotion shouldn't be part of your business plan.

[mikewinburn]

For example, Diodia Software... a free download from MS Explorer tool bar site allows you to visit a webpage, hit the download button, and every picture on page (and pictures on sublinks as well) download - full rez as far as I can tell, So like Mark1 said, those who couldn't be bothered will just keep it moving... but they probably didn't want it anyway. Those who do, its theirs with one click. (Hence watermarks)

[Edwin Herdman]

If someone can't right-click on the photo they can just use the "Prt-Scr" button on the keyboard to get a screenshot of the photo and then paste it into paint - cut it out and you've got the photo. You can also get around many of these by simply going to the web-cache on the computer and opening up the photo from there (since all images/web content is added to your computer when you view it online).

You can somewhat get around the latter by having a flash based website with slideshows and the like, though this can slowdown performance of the site for viewers on a slower connection.
I would rank there as being four different steps to try to get a photo:

Usually the easiest way is to simply try dragging the photo into the taskbar. If that doesn't work, the next best way is to try opening the source of the page (in Firefox, right click somewhere in the current frame -> "View Page Source." Then I would try opening the web cache (which can also be done, in Firefox and most browsers, right from the browser, important in cases like Firefox whose caches have been pretty much impenetrable to folder browsing from the hard drive in recent versions), and of course then your PrtScr recommendation is a decent way to go.

Most of those approaches can give you inaccurate filenames and file creation dates - a good tool (I've found) for saving files is DownThemAll! which generally transfers the file with the date of creation stored right off the webserver, rather than letting Windows uselessly assign a creation date of the moment the file is written to the hard drive.

Thankfully, really terrible DRM programs for media haven't caught on nearly as much for web content as they might have - mostly just for video which isn't a big thing for most of us. It may be in the future though - mainly I would assume for things like PDF "brand books" or similar demo publications (for content / ad production houses) at the one end, but also for things like e-books (which so far seem to have relatively gentle DRM, at least in the West).

Of course, the unstated assumption is that it hurts nobody to take the file which you haven't been given permission to copy, which is not always true depending on the intended use. Even keeping a local copy might not be to the artist's liking - I always though it was silly but some people will delete an old revision of their work in favor of the newest and "best" alteration. Of course it's a different question altogether if they morally (I don't mean legally) have that right - it could be especially important to have a record of what somebody actually posted when more is at stake than just the "purity" of their vision. For example, if somebody posts a picture, and replaces it with a highly PP'd version later, that might be masking their true production turnaround time, making them seem much faster to a prospective client than they actually are.

[x_tan]

^^ There are more tips for us the 'steal' the photos, rather than helping OP to keep 'us' away ;)

I'm laughing so hard and almost fell off my chair :D

[Edwin Herdman]

^^ There are more tips for us the 'steal' the photos, rather than helping OP to keep 'us' away ;)

I'm laughing so hard and almost fell off my chair :D
Well, it certainly wouldn't be up to me to try to persuade the OP that hiding their photos is a waste of time, would it? :cool:

In all truth there are legitimate reasons to do so, and the laws of the land definitely say that copyright owners should be able to control who makes copies, and (as it goes in the pre-Internet age) it is a simple and pretty compelling argument.

But keeping that in mind, I had more to say on the idea:
A little javascript (not mine):


<script language="JavaScript">
<!-- Hide from older browsers
// No right click script v.2.5
// (c) 1998 barts1000.
// barts1000@aol.com
//http://fxcentral.webprovider.com
// Don't delete this header!

var message='This function is not available here ';

//Message for the alert box

// Don't edit below!

function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.mousedown);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
</script>

Sure, the alert function is something that can be abused any way you can wish, and I'm all in favor of using things in novel ways - but even so I wish people wouldn't clutter up the web with garbage like this. It's not so much that it breaks the meaning of standards as that it makes the web a less pleasant place to use, for essentially no benefit.

And from the perspective of the website owner thinking of using this code, you have to weigh your protection against the impression somebody gets when they see a clumsily (and ineffectively, to all but the most novice web user) implemented "feature" like this harming their experience on the site and the utility of the functions. My own impression has always been that this function is used this way on sites that are poorly designed and generally not worth my time. It's particularly grating when there is something on the site that is actually worthwhile but the site owner has unknowingly slanted my preference towards other sources by implementing copy protection that way.

If a website was somebody's home, the "alarm" function would be the alarm system going off if I walked in with my shoes on. (Sidebar: There is a reason that Microsoft eventually stopped setting that Windows Messenger service on by default - it was the one that let anybody send silly messages in the form of an alert to any computer on the network, complete with thunk sound.) The average web user is probably going to be more inclined to accede to the site owner's requests if they were written out gently, even explicitly, as if the home owner was walking about without shoes, and there was a nice dry place to put your shoes, and if the welcome mat did not have spikes on it, etc.

This might seem like a silly example, and in a way it is - the web isn't your home; anything you put on it becomes the "property" of a large number of web caches on far-flung client computers as a way of making the website content available quickly even on repeated viewings, unless you're OK having everybody be forced to download the potentially megabytes of content on your page every time they visit, and if you're OK with paying for all the bandwidth that is going to eat up. If the most important thing to you is not letting people with muddy shoes into your house, then don't invite them into your home. (Another simplistic example but I think it holds at least a little.)

[x_tan]

Total agree with you, Edwin :)

Curtis make a very fine point already:
... but if you're gonna lose sleep over this kind of thing, then web-based promotion shouldn't be part of your business plan.

[hellbike]

The thing is - in order to display something in your browser it MUST be downloaded to your PC.

[scorpio_e]

Just register you images and sue the pants off whoever steal your images. It is a federal offense by the way;)

[ssim]

I hate sites that put restrictions on the right click. I use it alot to go back and once you get in the habit it is a pain in the ... when you run into a site that does this because they think it will stop others from lifting their image. As has been well documented here, if you put it online and someone really wants a copy it is easy enough to do.

[ewheeler20]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'll heed most of your advise and just not worry about it. Sounds like more of a head to all parties involved.

[Curtis N]

Just register you images and sue the pants off whoever steal your images.You would do well to read the plethora of threads in this forum from people who have gone down that road. You obviously haven't been there.

[SMP_Homer]

Its true. Disableing right click is basicaly a "Please dont steal" stickey note. It will stop the lazy and honest. But will not stop someone who really wants to get the pictrure.

That said...I have it disabled on my site. But know it is not really stopping anything.


I've always said locks only keep honest people out

[HappySnapper90]

Use both, a water mark and disabling the standard right mouse button menu. Zenfolio is one of the image hosting sites that has the right click menu disabled. You can see and visit my zenfolio site in my signature. They also allow limiting the size displayed. Right now I limit images to no bigger than 580 pixels on the long size even if say I'd upload it 2000 pixels on the long side which may be used for printing if you so choose.

[wuzzittoya]

Happy Snapper/Robert - I went and looked at your zenfolio site and was disappointed to need a password for Letchworth. Went to that state park with my family as a child! :)

I still haven't really put together my best for a real photo website yet. I'm taking pictures of my son's middle school football games and have that up on flickr so all the parents can look through and find pictures they like. I'm uploading more than just the "wow that was a good action shot" pictures because some of the kids don't get a lot of play time and if there's a picture where the kid's number is visible there's a chance a parent might want a copy. This is all being done free with just pictures written to CDs (parents will have to tell me which numbers they want and will have to take CD somewhere for printing or print out themselves). Mostly for practice and maybe some goodwill hires/word of mouth later if I'm lucky. Mostly I want to find amateur models for 'real life' type exposures. :)

[HappySnapper90]

Happy Snapper/Robert - I went and looked at your zenfolio site and was disappointed to need a password for Letchworth. Went to that state park with my family as a child! :)

Sorry to disappoint you but that gallery is of raw uncleaned up, untweaked film scans for a friend to see. I would not want visitors to not see the photos looking their best. I'll only release photos when they are finished and not a moment sooner. And my Letchworth collection will not be ready for some time yet.

[ryansworld10]

Don't waste all your time to keep people from downloading the photo smaple, just give it a watermark apparent enough that they would never want to use the photo, but hidden enough that they can see what the photo looks like clearly.

[Tom Reichner]

I think you gotta ask yourself, "Will I lose revenue if someone can violate my copyright on a 600 pixel image?" I mean, seriously, it's hard to justify fretting about this stuff.


So right - whoever is going to steal a little web photo was certainly not going to pay for it anyway, were they?

[Curtis N]

So right - whoever is going to steal a little web photo was certainly not going to pay for it anyway, were they?
Not necessarily. But like I said, if you think it's going to cost you sales then you need a watermark or keep it off the www.

[wombatHorror]

I think you gotta ask yourself, "Will I lose revenue if someone can violate my copyright on a 600 pixel image?" I mean, seriously, it's hard to justify fretting about this stuff.

Throw a watermark on it if you want, but if you're gonna lose sleep over this kind of thing, then web-based promotion shouldn't be part of your business plan.

yeah, I honestly don't see how blocking a little web grab is going to help anything, if they are happy with that they aren't paying to begin with and if someone so really loves somethign to actually pay for it, they will regardless of the web images. The average person can't afford to get much anyway and if they want to grab little collections of mini web photos from all over then more power to them IMO. Let them have it easily. Right-click protect just annoys them and turns them off to the website and then maybe they dont stick around and one day come across something they'd actually feel like they just had to have full quality and purchase.

maybe if shoot something youth sports it's different, but then right click does nothing nayway, only a big watermark

for other stuff if someone wants a tiny little image i'm glad and don't try to make it tough on them to get it, many people liek to collect tons of coll little shotsw but nobody is going to be buying or able to buy hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of shots and as I said, I think blocking it just annoys people and then maybe you lose the sale you might one day have gotten out of one of them for something they just had to have wall size.

[snapshot2011]

I dont think right click fix helps at all.

Look at it this way, as mentioned above if someone wants the image they will take it using the above methods.

Now what I would do is heavily watermark the image, if they want it that bad they can sit in photoshop and clean it up themselves. Positioning watermarks over key points will give them a hard time. Key points I refer to parts of the image that are hard to replicate or fill in as there is no idea what the background behind the watermark looks like, make the images small in size and thats pretty much all you can apart from using an IP address tracker, target the culprit, make a quick call to Chuck Norris and he'll sort them out and get your photo back along with the pinky finger from their right hand!

I too am tossing up for a website atm and seriously have been holding back because of this very reason.

I will employ the methods mentioned and hope for the best, hell if my images do get poached I think its a compliment knowing someone thought it was good enough to steal

Ian

[ryansworld10]

I dont think right click fix helps at all.

Look at it this way, as mentioned above if someone wants the image they will take it using the above methods.

Now what I would do is heavily watermark the image, if they want it that bad they can sit in photoshop and clean it up themselves. Positioning watermarks over key points will give them a hard time. Key points I refer to parts of the image that are hard to replicate or fill in as there is no idea what the background behind the watermark looks like, make the images small in size and thats pretty much all you can apart from using an IP address tracker, target the culprit, make a quick call to Chuck Norris and he'll sort them out and get your photo back along with the pinky finger from their right hand!

I too am tossing up for a website atm and seriously have been holding back because of this very reason.

I will employ the methods mentioned and hope for the best, hell if my images do get poached I think its a compliment knowing someone thought it was good enough to steal

Ian

+1

Make it so the little thief can't fix it up.

[ewheeler20]

playing devils advocate here:
What's more annoying to a potential consumer? not being able to right-click? or having a giant obtrusive watermark on it?
(assuming the consumer wasn't planning on just stealing the photo anyways)

[Jimconnerphoto]

playing devils advocate here:
What's more annoying to a potential consumer? not being able to right-click? or having a giant obtrusive watermark on it?
(assuming the consumer wasn't planning on just stealing the photo anyways)
more annoying is the watermark but why are they right clicking?

[ewheeler20]

^^^ exactly... So that's why I thought during my OP that I'd rather use the anti-right-click feature then use a waterwark. less annoying for consumers. Less annoying = more sales.

[HappySnapper90]

^^^ exactly... So that's why I thought during my OP that I'd rather use the anti-right-click feature then use a waterwark. less annoying for consumers. Less annoying = more sales.
That's fine if you want to turn a blind eye to making it easier for people to use your photo without permission for commercial purposes and possibly making more money than you are!

Note I think think there was a recent post about Valvoline Europe linking someone's Flicker photo to their home page! They send an email saying they were doing - not asking permission just doing it - but saying to let them know if the photo owner did not want his photo linked aka being used for commercial purposes without permission or compensation! You'd be surprised how much is really going on. I bet for every instance of "my photo is being used illegally" there are 3 to 10 other instances that are unknown as photos online seem to be a free for all, unfortunately!