Preventing right-clicking

[karim]

Hi Pekka,

is it possible to force EE to load a roll-over image along with the photo itself, where the main photo appears on the photo.php page?

I'd like the photo to change to a different one when the mouse pointer is over it... (a different one that will be the same for all photos in the exhibition)

I experimented with several rollover scripts, but couldn't get it to work. My coding skills are very limited.

I hope this makes sense.

Many thanks Pekka

k.

[jgrove]

I also would like to disable the right click function, this can be done with JAVA and also disable the IE Image Toolbar


Pekka can this be done?

Thanks

[tommykjensen]

I also would like to disable the right click function, this can be done with JAVA and also disable the IE Image Toolbar


Whats the point? Java can be disabled and thus Your right click prevention fails. Besides if people want to steal Your photo they just grab it from temporary internet files where it has been stored.

[jgrove]

I also would like to disable the right click function, this can be done with JAVA and also disable the IE Image Toolbar


Whats the point? Java can be disabled and thus Your right click prevention fails. Besides if people want to steal Your photo they just grab it from temporary internet files where it has been stored.

Sorry yes thats right, i have been using another well know gallery program, that stored files differently that nade it almost impossible to get the original file.

Cheers

[tommykjensen]

Sorry yes thats right, i have been using another well know gallery program, that stored files differently that nade it almost impossible to get the original file.


Well no matter which gallery You use You cannot prevent anyone from copying the photo. It will be downloaded to the pc and stored in temporary internet files folder where it can be found really easy.

[Pekka]

One commercial gallery program uses simple html code where they place a transparent gif over a table, for which the main photo is defined as background image. Apparently they also tell their users that this system prevents image stealing. It is very dangerous to say anything like that. If you put images on net where they can be displayed on computer screen, the images can be "stolen". There is no known method available to prevent it.

I can add those methods to EE but then EE users MUST understand that those methods are only cosmetic and not safe by any means.

[tommykjensen]

If one are really interested in some protection of images a digital watermark could be embedded.

See more here: http://www.digimarc.com/products/mypicturemarc/default.asp

It won't prevent copying but it makes the images tracable.

[rob champagne]

one way of making life difficult for image thieves is to put your image into a flash (swf) file and make that swf file play only with an actionscript command which goes to the correct frame to display the image. There is very little overhead in kb in doing this but it does mean the viewer must have flash active on their system.
I know it doesn't stop theft but it means the only way to get the image is by print screen or some image capture software. Looking at cache won't get it because you don't know how to start the movie at the correct frame.
That's about as secure as it's possible to be.

Doing it with transparent gif is not secure since using "save as" from file menu will save background image in directory of choice together with html.

Rob

[rob champagne]

I just realised that there is already an option in misc settings to put main images in SWF files so that should solve the right clicking question but without 100% security.
However, I have EE installed locally and selecting Flash to view images doesn't work.
Do I need any special modules installed into my local version of PHP to make it work for me?

Rob Champagne

[TomKa]

You can also use PTcrypt from PanoTools to encrypt your images, but after that you must use the java applet PTViewer to view the images. And the java runtime MUST be installed on the client machine.

Another possibility with swf files could be Zoomifyer EZ, but I don't know if this could be integrated into EE.

Or you can slice the image and display 100 pieces with random file names...

[jgrove]

One commercial gallery program uses simple html code where they place a transparent gif over a table, for which the main photo is defined as background image. Apparently they also tell their users that this system prevents image stealing. It is very dangerous to say anything like that. If you put images on net where they can be displayed on computer screen, the images can be "stolen". There is no known method available to prevent it.

I can add those methods to EE but then EE users MUST understand that those methods are only cosmetic and not safe by any means.

Hi Pekka,

To be honest it isnt worth adding any feature like this, the right click function would be nice as well as the NO image toolbar for IE.

I am well aware of photo being stolen from web sites and i know they get cached.

Its a small option and i would love to see it added, with the ability to add your own displayed text,

so if you right click the window can display your own text?

Does that sound ok?

[TomKa]

Have you tried to put the meta tag into the header section of "misc.settings -> global settings" ?

<META HTTP-EQUIV="imagetoolbar" CONTENT="no">

Here is a script to disable the right click:
http://www.slackerhtml.com/javascript/misc/norightorleft.html

[mikemcnally]

I thought the only real protection is watermarks big and bold on any high res images and low res with watermark in corner. If they are someone who is actually going to buy your work, they will want the high res image. Better, but expensive, an embeded signature in the jpeg itself. Otherwise, its all about opening a gallery with a real sidewalk in front of it.

I think the right click stealers were not going to buy your picture and are happy to use it as a background sceen for 2 days. Still stealing, still dishonest, but we are not going to boil the ocean today. The people that are going steal you picture for commercial use don't want all the work of removing a water mark. Don't give em anything of quality to look at (worth printing) without a honking water mark.

Conversely, a glass window on a store front can keep a lot of would be walk by petty criminals from taking stuff, even if there is no alarm on it. So there is value in it. Anyway, bottom line, I think until the WWW is safe for 6 year old kids, don't put your revenue work up, or someone will get to it. If you put an expensive peice of anything in a glass window, your asking for you window to be broken, espcially on the web, where dishonesty is so prevalent. So, anyway, I think the minimal protection schemes are worth while.

[jgrove]

Further to my posts above, and reading another post, place this text in your Misc Global Settings Header section

<META HTTP-EQUIV="imagetoolbar" CONTENT="no">
<script language="JavaScript">
var msg="(C) Copyright James Grove 2002 All Rights Reserved";
function disableIE() {if (document.all) {alert(msg);return false;}
}
function disableNS(e) {
if (document.layers||(document.getElementById&&!docum ent.all)) {
if (e.which==2||e.which==3) {alert(msg);return false;}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);document.o nmousedown=disableNS;
} else {
document.onmouseup=disableNS;document.oncontextmen u=disableIE;
}
document.oncontextmenu=new Function("alert(msg);return false")
</script>

Alter the james grove text for yourself

Thats it, no imagetoolbar and no right click. But it can be a pain have no right click.

Cheers

[mvrekum]

I know and I tried all these scripts, but I never found one that prevented me from copying an image. Actually, when I can see the image on my screen, then I can download it to my harddisk.

The only things that give a bit protection are flash (.swf) files, but hey, you can still do a 'print screen'.

Another way to protect your images a bit is by placing them in a password protected PDF with the print option disabled.

Anyhow, like I said in the first line of this post, I have not found a good way to protect images.

Martin

[Bruce Hamilton]

...I have not found a good way to protect images.
The only way to protect an image on the internet... is to not put it on the internet. Only other real option is to use a resolution so low, the image isn't worth stealing.

[mikemcnally]

I totally agree with you mvrekum... if you put it on the web... you gotta assume someone is going to take it, so don't leave any cash cows laying around.

...but my solution always works.....I just take pictures that no one would want to steal :D ... but someday that theft-proof feature might just go away...

Seriously, water marks don't do the trick on "quality size photos"?

Killing right click is like putting a glass on a store front, easily broken
but it stops a lot of petty theft?

Mike

[Bruce Hamilton]

I just take pictures that no one would want to steal :D
LOL One man's trash... :lol:

[okapi]

i can't understand why people are anxious for their photos could be "stolen". it's ridiculous.
i don't think that someone would choose just one of my 72 dpi images among billions of others to make money of it. probably that would make me even kind of proud...
who can really think that his photos are so much in demand?
in my opinion even watermarking is a somehow arrogant attitude.
i'm just glad when people like my photographs. they are protected by law anyway.

[batleys]

I tend to agree with Okapi, at 72 dpi at 800x600 or thereabouts, I would of thought at best the image could be used as a screen saver and that’s about it - and yes I too would be flattered if people what to use my pictures for that. Certainly all the serious commercial interest I have had with my picture has often required releasing uncompressed 30Meg+ TIFF files onto DVD or CD.

I have been using Digimarc watermarking for a while now, but have decide to discontinue using it for new images as the distortions it introduces into the image become distracting - and it seems to push up the JPEG file size. It turns thin high contrast lines such rigging or wires fuzzy, and blotches smooth tones, such as pale smooth milky skies etc. I have now resorted to a relatively discrete visible watermark in the bottom right of the picture for all new work...
:?

Simon
www.suffolkimages.com

[tommykjensen]

I have been using Digimarc watermarking for a while now, but have decide to discontinue using it for new images as the distortions it introduces into the image become distracting - and it seems to push up the JPEG file size. It turns thin high contrast lines such rigging or wires fuzzy, and blotches smooth tones, such as pale smooth milky skies etc. I have now resorted to a relatively discrete visible watermark in the bottom right of the picture for all new work...
:?


Can You post a sample photo that illustrate the distortions?

[dscottf]

even swf presentations and slices and PTcrypt and any other method you can throw at it can be defeated by a screen capture.

Granted, some methods disable the screen capture, but only on Windows, I have yet to find one that can deal with OS X.

Same goes for many right-click disablers and 'toolbar' hacks. They pretty much only effect IE on windows (not many people use IE on mac anymore)

I have yet to be stopped when challenged (for demonstration purposes only of course)

[nighthawk]

I have found a good hosting site that pretty much solved my problem.

On Fotki.com, they have an optional setting that displays the images at no greater than 500x500 as a default even though I load my full-sized 3036x2024 images for printing. Anything that someone could steal would not be of good enough quality for printing, backgrounds, etc.

Furthermore, I can link to my Live Journal site or this forum and the link is that size as well, which makes it easy to remain within the prescribed size limits. The server is also extremely fast so the uploads to display in the forum are quick as well.

To see what I'm talking about, check the link below. I'm very happy with the site and am offering my prints for sale through them.

I realize this will not help anyone with their own sites already set up, but it satisfied my requirements to set up one in the first place.

[tommykjensen]

Well I have my own server so I have decidet to write a small script I will use to post photos on this site, the disadvantage of it will probably be that I can't post photos on sites like dpreview that use a completely different forum software.

This will not prevent people from saving the photos and steal them that way but it will prevent them from directlinking to my server.