i need techie help

[5pintshefound]

hello my lovlies.. ok so heres my issue. i recently opened up my very own website. Its a photography site, showcasing some of my photos. now, ive heard that there is coding that can be put in, to disable right-click save, and rightclick print? so my questions are 1} how much does disabling the right click thing help, and 2} would it just be better to watermark it? {whihc i hate, because there seems to be no decent way to do it so it doesnt screw the shot up}

help??

~5PHF

 

[temp256]

All such code is half-baked, easy to get around, and is generally a pain in the ass to the user. If they can see it, there is absolutely no way to stop them from copying it.

The only viable deterrent is a watermark. Besides, most people just want a copy to use as a background or something.

 

[ickle_stace]

yeah, you can easily get around a right-click stoppage if you know enough about computers so it's pretty pointless.

Watermarking would be better, as temp256 said

 

[Weird Harold]

1} how much does disabling the right click thing help, and 2} would it just be better to watermark it?

Disabling the right click menu helps deter honest people and computer semi-literates. At the very least, it sends a clear message that you do not want your pictures copied and nobody can claim ignorance on that point.

Watermarking deters deters honest people and computer semi-literates from claiming your work as their own, and again sends a clear message that you retain the copyright to the image.

Neither method will deter a dishonest, computer literate person because both methods can be bypassed -- although stripping a watermark from an image is harder than bypassing a right-click block.

If you're concerned about theft of your images, I'd use BOTH methods to make theft as difficult as possible -- you won't stop a determined thief, but you will be able to show that any theft was deliberate.

 

[Ezzy]

Another question is looking at the "why" you don't want them downloaded.

If it is for copywrite protection then WH's points are very valid, if it is to stop hotlinking to them (hotlinking is where they burn your bandwidth, to steal your picture for their site), then it is a different issue and needs to be addressed on your server space.

 

[5pintshefound]

definately copywrite protection fo rme. im trying desperately to get a photography studio up and running. As i am stationed on a small island, i wnat to be able to offer a website so that people can see my work {im a mil wife and realistically, when i get my business up and running, it WILL be moving every few years.} mainly i want to protect my images, and as soon as im allowd to, to offer them up for sale on the aforementioned site. {waiting on an ok right nowfor that-- rules about having a profit making business while in base housing...} . so, until i can get it okd to sell the stuff, i would like to show it on my site.

~5PHF

 

[temp256]

There are a few more problems with "disabling" right clicking.

-The code is buggy, and often causes other errors on the page.
-It doesn't always work. IE (the internet's bitch) will do whatever the website tells it, but real browsers like Firefox simply ignore most disabling scripts.
-It interferes with regular browsing. The user might be trying to copy text, go back, or bookmark your site. It's the user's computer, not yours.
-You don't want to piss them off by treating everyone like a theif. This is why I hate DVDs and "protected" media.
-I will hate you for it.

If you still insist on doing this, I have seen exactly one good way of doing it. They put the image in its own table, and set the attributes to function as a background for the table cell. By default, IE will give you the context menu for the page, but does not include a copy or save function for the image. This needs no scripts, and doesn't mess with normal functions.

 

[Weird Harold]

mainly i want to protect my images, and as soon as im allowd to, to offer them up for sale on the aforementioned site.

Your best protection of salability is limiting the resolution/quality of the images available on the site and save the high resolution/quality images for paying customers -- it will also save bandwidth costs.

You need to show just enough quality and resolution to demonstrate the quality of your photography without providing enough quality or resolution for someone to print or otherwise use your images profitably. Perhaps provide just one or two expendible images at full quality/resolution to demonstrate the quality a paying customer can expect.

 

[5pintshefound]

thanks harold. im guessin you got the best idea here.

i jsut want to protect my interests and my work. as this is what i want to make my lively hood at, i need to be cautious.

thanks agian!

 

[Weird Harold]

thanks harold. im guessin you got the best idea here.

i jsut want to protect my interests and my work. as this is what i want to make my lively hood at, i need to be cautious.

thanks agian!

Your biggest problem is going to be finding a balance between showing what you can do and giving away too much quality.

 

[Snowman5933]

Web images are generally setup for 72 to 96 dpi @ 1024x768 or smaller. Even if you download the image it will not make a decent print, so you really have nothing to fear. I do alot of digital photography and the images that I send to the printer are generally setup for 600 dpi @ 3072x2048 or larger. I don't watermark my photos with a copyright...it's just not worth the trouble to me. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Snowman

 

[temp256]

dpi has absolutely nothing to do with digital images. They have a resolution, nothing more. dpi is only used to set the physical dimentions when printing.

If your main commodity is selling prints, then you can freely show large images with a nice big watermark over it. Leave it off when sending prints.

If you want to sell internet access, no watermark is needed. If you really want one, make a smaller watermark in the corner.