Blocking graphic file right-click downloads

[Sereniti]

Hello, all -

I have several clients who need to display their photo and graphic work online but don't want low-quality printouts of their photos and other graphics circulating through the general public.

I know there are javascripts or other tools that will allow a site owner to block the right-click (or ctrl-click on a Mac) menu so that proprietary graphic files can't be downloaded. Instead of the menu popping up, a message pops up in its place. Where can I find such code?

Thanks.

[fathom]

Hello, all -

I have several clients who need to display their photo and graphic work online but don't want low-quality printouts of their photos and other graphics circulating through the general public.

I know there are javascripts or other tools that will allow a site owner to block the right-click (or ctrl-click on a Mac) menu so that proprietary graphic files can't be downloaded. Instead of the menu popping up, a message pops up in its place. Where can I find such code?

Thanks.

There is no way to categorically stop imagery posted online from being circulated, although you can limit website functionality to the hill - which then begs the question why have it online?

You can always stop the honest people but once in the public domain the dishonest will find a way around any provisions you adopt preemptively. Thus zero protection.

I highly recommend using

Digimarc MarcSpider® image tracking (http://www.digimarc.com/products/IMAGEBRIDGE/MarcSpider/default.asp) which is part of Adobe Phototshop for embedding proprietary and trackable watermarks (but you still need the license to track).

You cannot remove the watermark, not by saving, editing, cropping or format chance, the only real limitation is if not digitally displayed online no tracking functionality is available.

This way you can find illegal copies - and by developing policy on your site for infringement - you can easily make the culprit pay in settlement.

Digimarc Partners

http://www.digimarc.com/partners/current/digitalImage/default.asp

[spronger]

I have to agree with fathom. There are plenty of JavaScripts around to disable right-click. They will not stop anyone remotely net-savy from getting to your files and only cause annoyance to those who use right-click for completely legitimate reasons. Why annoy your visitors? Not worth the effort!

Steve Pronger

[vfaulkner]

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=268 has been another excellent discussion on the same sort of topic.

[Sereniti]

Thanks for the input. I agree with most of the responses, but it still doesn't address the question of where can I find the code. (Okay, so I'm not much of a programmer.) My clients (okay, so one is a non-client friend) want to slow folks down; they understand that nothing can be done to stop unauthorized download short of not displaying their art work or headshots at all. That option defeats the purpose of a web site where you can send folks - who will commission you or make a purchase - so they can see your portfolio.

Yes, I know about Digimark - my sig other used it in the past for a web site he maintained of his photos (which were intended for download but not for re-posting elsewhere) but didn't like it as it degraded the image quality, defeating the purpose of his site.

Besides, as noted in my original post, we're talking about discouraging folks who would print miriad copies and circulate physical prints, not who will rip off content for display elsewhere. While Digimark would seriously downgrade the quality and therefore discourage some of that activity, the last thing an artist wants is poor-quality copies of their work floating around. Ultimately, it reflects on their skills. Even at the Men in Tutus site we're still tweaking saturation levels to give the best possible appearance to the work.

The pics they're putting online are absolutely NOT the quality of the originals, they just want to limit the number of free-floating prints. (See http://www.menintutus.com and http://www.stephaniebeaton.com [in this case, it's a "let me see before I buy, then why buy if I can steal?" mentality].) At these sites, there is no legit reason to right-click and most visitors are anything but web-savvy, so the annoyance factor will be minimal.

Any thoughts?

[vfaulkner]

a 'customizable'script can be found at http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/0-7690-8-5421955-1.html?tag=st.bl.7690.dir1.7690-8-5421955-1

HTH

[spronger]

Here's a script courtesy of BraveNet. Lots of resources here:

http://www.stevepronger.com/bravenet.htm

Copy and paste right after your <head> tag:

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
var popup="Sorry, right-click is disabled.\n\nThis Site Copyright
©2003";
function noway(go) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(popup);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (go.which == 3) {
alert(popup);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
}
document.onmousedown=noway;
// --> </script>

I still say, if you don't want it copied or printed, don't put it on the web!

Cheers

Steve

[spronger]

a 'customizable'script can be found at http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/0-7690-8-5421955-1.html?tag=st.bl.7690.dir1.7690-8-5421955-1

HTH

Hooly dooly. Make sure you 'customise' it or your client will be 'round to kneecap you.

Steve

[SyrenSong]

Sereniti -

You may also want to consider placing a watermark on your clients' images. It's a nice way of discouraging exactly what you're talking about.

Also, even if someone does decide to print the images, they'll be advertising that it's your client's work.

The watermark could be placed somewhere the obscures a significant portion of the image. Or it could contain copyright information. Maybe even the website address where it was found. Essentially, if anyone was determined enough to download the image for any use, they'd provide a nice "free" advertisement for your clients!

HTH!
Syren

[Sereniti]

Thanks VERY much. If you think about it, check out the Men In Tutus web site around mid-September. Once her show opens she'll be putting up lots of images.

Syren, the copyright notice/watermark is an excellent suggestion. We had discussed it, but somehow that thought slipped through the cracks :)

Spronger, that's a great resource - it just went into my bookmarks!

[vfaulkner]

oops, yeah, make sure you change the error message before you get hurt.
(not everyone has a warped sense of 'humor')
Sorry!
:-b

[press711]

Just thought I will put this here. i had once tried to copy an image by right-click from a site and every time i did i got a balnk image when i opened it in Photoshop.
If I open the file in IE it looks perfect. After repeated attempts I finally realised that the image was actually a GIF animation with the first image being a blank one and the next frame being the image.

[cvoll]

If you want to implement the right-click-disable, fine. But try not to delude your client(s) into thinking this will stop people from getting the image. If it is displayed on screen... people can and will download it. Dispite any efforts you make. I agree with others in this thread... If they don;t want people to get the image then DO NOT put it on the web. Period, paragraph, end of story.

[Squiver]

Stopping people stealing images is almost impossible to do. If they want it bad enough they are going to get it. For example there is no way to stop the print screen or programs like snagit. Also using a strong watermark makes the image look bad. There is no true answer for protecting something that is out in the public view.

Adam Smith
Squiver, Inc.
www.squiver.com
adam@squiver.com
678-795-9009

[copolsky]

<SCRIPT>function click() {if (event.button==2) {alert('YOUR 1 LINE TEXT MESSAGE\n YOUR 2 LINE TEXT MESSAGE\n You 3 LINE OF TEXT MESSAGE \n YOUR 4 LINE OF TEXT MESSAGE');}}document.onmousedown=click// - -></SCRIPT>

Brings a pop up screen with your text in when someone trys to right click to download.

By no means is this script full proof in the downloading of images from a website. As mentioned in the previous posts people with the know how can still use your images if they really want.

Brand your images with your website address onto the image itself nobody likes to display an image on a website with another website URL.

Clarence Opolsky
Marketing Internet Consultant

[wizwow]

Contrary to some of the above statements, I believe there is a way to prevent images from being taken. You must use some sort of visible protection to prevent screengrabs, but you can keep the image from being downloaded. (Of course if someone knows how to harvest their internet 'temp' files, the image can be had... but most, MOST, do not have a clue how to do this.)

Too long to go into detail, but involves a DIV, transparent Gif, Disable Right click, and image being served from a server-side javascript (which 'encodes' the image URL).

You can see it in action at:
http://thephototool.com/thephototool/test_protect/default.asp

Hope that helps.

[SyrenSong]

I was able to view the source code, find the name of the image and then save to disk using Mozilla. Here's the address of the image:
http://thephototool.com/thephototool/test_protect/5.jpg

Hmmm. I could do the same thing in IE using the pulldown menu.

Am I missing something here?

Syren

[wizwow]

Syren,
Nope - not missing anything with image #5. But - image #5 is not protected.
The other two are.
My bad, in that this is the old protection demo address.
If you go to the Demo of thePhotoTool you will see the protection in full.
My partner informs me that he will be making the full protection available on this page soon. It is, however, in full at the demo site.
Including: No right click / click and drag; No print; No Screen shot PC)(disabled alt key); No view source (as above on the two top images).
If javascript is disabled - the viewer cannot view the website.
See update in 48 hours, or visit the demo site for a closer look.
www.thephototool.com
click on "Demo" and then on "photography".
Cheers,
Don

[SyrenSong]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I can still get the image info directly from View Source in Mozilla.

And if I right-click on the image I want when it cycles up, then select View Image, I get the full image address - http://206.111.202.94/thephototool/homeart/4.jpg - and can see the image.

Sorry. I was really hoping someone had found a way. I've got a lot of possible artist clients if only.... :(

Syren

[Graf1771]

I know i might be a bit late to reply to this topic - why not put the image in a Flash movie.

You can't right click and download image from flash, it doesn't stop screen grabs of course, but fixes the problem of direct download, i think.

[zbatia]

Sereniti,

Here is a link to our Index that is used by our current and former students as well as many "outsiders" because it's free:
http://www.rtek2000.com/ouruseful.html#web

You can find there the links to ANYTHING the web designer needs.
Njoy!

[zbatia]

Wizwow,

**ANY** image that you see on the screen can be CAPTURED and than saved in any format. I can prove that there is no protection that cannot be broken. Therefore, the right web site policy is the only your insurance.

[swstyles]

For the average user, simple image protection is enough. Stealing images via source code is only for those that know how to do it. You will never totally be able to stop people from stealing your images. All images are stored in your cache, did ya know?

The simple protection mentioned above is great for photographer sites that sell images online. I can imagine the sales lost because of images printed from websites. If you are a photographer shooting a wedding and you post your images online for potential sales, anything to deter the potential client from printing from your website would be useful.

[wizwow]

Well - we were up late last night...
Darn Mozilla Page Info Box is a problem. So we are creating the ability for the photog to simply block See ya Mozilla. No loss. I am so tired of writing and rewriting for browser quirks (12 years...)

Our stats for three photogs this am...
1. 34,000 IE / 345 Mozilla / NS
2. 25,000 IE / 401 Mozilla / NS
3. 56,000 IE / 1019 Mozilla /NS

So, bye bye Mozilla. Rest in peace.

Now, about screen capture. If the photog haas elected to not protect the image with our overlay "Proof" or "copyright", the image can be captured on Mac. We have disabled the "alt" key on the PC, so they cannot "Alt Print Screen" to capture the digital. We have also eliminated printing and viewing source. If our photogs have lots of viewers on Mac, we recommend that they use the visual protection.
http://www.tomkrebsbach.com is an example.

Tom uses the visual protection.
If you are looking at www.thephototool.com site and go to the demo, you can get the images on the front page. they are not protected, only the galleries are protected.

We do tell our customers that the image will live in cache, but we have very little worries that the average visitor can go that far. Heck - even with bars on the windows, burglars will get in if they want to bad enough.

This is a serious problem for many photogs who are trying to use the web to save their customers time and add convenience... only to find someone printing off their new Epson/"print from web" on decent paper.

Don't tell me that if you don't want it stolen, don't put it on the web. It is mine. You can see it. You cannot take it home. That model for commerce has been in place for a long time... the web has not changed it.

We are now looking to eliminate the cache or rename the image at point of display to be the same, so all you could get in cache is one image. Remember, this tool is to protect from consumer / and minor infringement. Bad guys will always "hack" around to get what they want.

Glad to see all the energy here... this is very important to visual artists at all levels.

Long rant.
Cheers,
Don

[zbatia]

I did not find that the images on this site http://www.tomkrebsbach.com are protected (at least the slides). I saw them in Netscape 7.1 and could easily view the image (right click) and then save one by one as soon as they open.

You are absolutely correct that the page can be hacked anyway...

[wizwow]

Roman,
not the home page graphics.
Please visit the galleries.
We do not protect the images in the home page slide show.
Don

[zbatia]

Ok, I see what you mean.

[jdiben]

Don,

I was wondering what the purpose was of disabling the alt key? alt+print screen captures the window that has focus. Print screen by itself captures the entire screen. And what does the ctrl key do that would make you want to disable it?

Joe

[wizwow]

alt key for preventing the screen grab. As I have stated before, using the visible protection is best.
Control is for cutting and pasting.
Cannot disable the "Print Screen" key as there is no number attached to that particular key making javascript ineffective.

We are thinking at this point that we will launch the page into a single window with no toolbar. With the right click disabled, that should make it very difficult to get the image. Cannot do anything about the cache but we are looking at a script to name the image the same for display purposes meaning it will overwrite in the cache only leaving one image vulnerable. If they want it that bad, can't stop em.

We are beginning development and testing of the above and will keep you informed with test pages etc...

Don

[tviman]

This is a topic that has been batted around the net for a long time. Some of you may think that disabling the right-click function slows down the "honest guy". Nothing could be further from the truth! Anybody who is even remotely web-savvy can figure it out in ten minutes. (My sister had trouble with "Internet for Dummies" and even she figured it out!)

It boils down to this: there is NO WAY that you can keep safe what is dispalyed on a web page. If the browser can see it, so can anybody else. And for every "right-click" or print screen disabler you can find, there are 3 javascript routines that will show me the exact content of your page, and where to find images, code, etc.

As has been pointed out many times, if you want to display graphics, place a water mark on the image to be displayed. (Even this is just a small deterent.) I have designed several web sites for artists and photographers and the method I use is to show a low resolution or water marked image. If the potential buyer wants to see the real thing, they have to buy it. We send them a link and one-time password to download the image. This has worked very successfully for my clients.

[swstyles]

What Wizwow is referring to is protecting your images from 99.9% of the web surfers out there that have no clue about looking at source code or using javascript applications to dissassemble web pages.

Hell, even front page has the ability to grab an entire website, images and all.

[HOLDSTILL]

Being a professional photographer & having had images taken & used on blogs I can say that yes this is a problem. I did put disable right click on my site but it does no good.
However, I do know a way to fix this that I have not done because it is time consuming & must be done to every image.
Seth Resnick http://www.sethresnick.com
has a fix he told us about & it is posted on his site. It involves Layers in Photoshop - previously alluded to here - and it works. For the instructions you must Login to his site.
The right click brings up only a blank of his choosing with words of copyright etc. You cannot get to the image under the blank.
I am not sure if this avoids Cached images tho as I am always amazed at how many tidbits of site design logos, gifs & jpegs are in the cache to take if I wanted them.
But for me, I am hoping resolution will be small enough to discourage most other folks as 72 dpi is too small to print anything decent. None of my images will enlarge. I set up a separate webpage for viewing (lightbox) requests.

Hope this has helped!
DAJones
"HOLDSTILL!" Productions - VA Stock Photography
& Website Design

[tviman]

swstyles - don't fool yourself - "99.9% of the web surfers out there that have no clue" is a rapidly declining minority.

HOLDSTILL - I pulled one of Mr. Resnicks "protected" photos directly from his site in less than 3 minutes. I could just as easily searched my web cache and done the same thing.

There is no way to "protect" content that is displayed on a web page, short of threatening copyright infringement lawsuits! But then, U.S. Copyright laws don't apply to users in Canada, Europe, or Asia so the best you can do there is to send a cease and desist letter that has no legal backing.

As I said before, once a web page is displayed on your browser, almost all of the content is on your computer! Check your web page cache folders if you don't believe me.

[Seth Resnick]

Tviman is correct that one can still steal. There is no 100 percent way to prevent theft but you can stop a lot of it. I would never say 100%. What Tviman did not contemplate is that there are other things one can do to deal with this issue.It also doesn't have to take very long to find infringements as demonstrated here. Tviman has willfully violated US Copyright Law to prove a point. All of our images are registered with the US Copyright Office and we take Copyright very seriously. Every case is fully prosecuted.


Sincerely,

Seth Resnick

[tviman]

Mr. Resnick is correct in that there are other ways to protect your content. However, he didn't tell you that it can be very time consuming and devestatingly expense!

As far as his statement that I violated US Copyright Law, let me point out that US Copyright DOES NOT protect against what I, or any of the millions of internet users are capable of doing. As I pointed out to Mr. Resnick, a copyright violation would have occurred only if I had done any of several things including: reproduce for public display or profit without permission; alteration followed by public display or sale for profit; inclusion in any media for public display or profit; claim of ownership of said work(s); etc. The complete list is part of US Copyright Law Section 106 through 122. I did none of these.

Did I steal anything? That depends on your point of view. He still has possession of his work. I have a copy - no, I had 2 copies - the one that I supposedly "stole" and the one that hius web site put on my computer (in my web cache). I wonder, how could I "steal" something that he so freely gives away?

This should be a lesson for all of you who wish to put your work on line. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't want others to have it, DO NOT put it on the internet! It's as simple as that.

For the record, I have apologized to Mr. Resnick personally via email for taking up his time and proving that his work is vulnerable. I wonder if he is capable of doing the same....

[Seth Resnick]

Patrick,

I never indicated ever that work can be completely protected. I give lectures on this all the time and say that 100 percent protection is impossible. I did say that you can eliminate many users from infringing. I discuss it openly and say it is very similar to locking the front door of a house. A lock means nothing no matter how complicated to someone who wants in but we still lock our houses to eliminate many and further it sends a message that you care about your privacy and rights. What I do is very similar.

I too am very familiar with copyright law. I won't debate the merits of your interpretation of articles 106 through 122. If you have downloaded an image that has protection enabled, you have willfully violated that protection and that is very clearly defined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Without using the image the case would not have grounds for constituting monetary gain and certainly that is something that would be considered. You have however admitted to getting around means for protection and grounds for prosecution can be obtained on these merits. At the very least you should know that under the DMCA that we can make a legal i demand to have your accounts terminated in any venue where you have engaged in practices to violate copyright.

Debating this issue is a waste of my time and my patience. I won't respond to any further messages on this topic from you. If you have any further communications please address them to the Attorney Jonathan Feigenbaum jon Feigenbaum <jonf@Phillips-Angley.Com>


Sincerely,

Seth Resnick

[tviman]

Once again, Mr. Resnick is correct in that the DMCA does offer and support protection where "protection has been enabled". What this means is if his work must have been in a password protected area, encrypted using public/private keys (or other methods of encryption), or not readily and easily accessible by the general public. However, the location of his work is not in a password protected area, not encrypted in any fashion, as is available to the general internet public. It's freely available to any internet user who cares to look.

Mr. Resnick has used the analogy of "locking the front door of a house". Well, Mr. Resnick failed to lock any of the doors his "house". His web site "protection" consists of placing a transparent image over his actual image and through the use of a javascript funtion, intercepts the right mouse button click. This is a very old, well known, and totally useless method of protecting content.

His site never disabled the "View Source" button on your browser - because it can't be done! So, click this button, search through the HTML code, and there it is - the name of the file! Although the name of the file didn't have the exact location on his server, it only takes a few seconds to figure it out - even for those who aren't savvy.

Mr. Resnick has decided not to discuss this any further with me, and that's his right. However, it seems rather odd for a person who spends so much time telling you about how much he cares for his rights only to then drop the subject because it wastes his time and patience! I don't know about you but when I feel that strongly about something, I don't give up very easily.

[swstyles]

Tviman is correct that one can still steal. There is no 100 percent way to prevent theft but you can stop a lot of it. I would never say 100%. What Tviman did not contemplate is that there are other things one can do to deal with this issue.It also doesn't have to take very long to find infringements as demonstrated here. Tviman has willfully violated US Copyright Law to prove a point. All of our images are registered with the US Copyright Office and we take Copyright very seriously. Every case is fully prosecuted.


Sincerely,

Seth Resnick

So Seth,

What you are telling me is that anybody that views your site is infringing on your copyright. All the viewed the copyrighted images on your site are stored in your visitor's cache. Will you go after these folks?

[Seth Resnick]

I have told Patrick that if he would like to discuss this he is more than welcome to discuss it with my attorney. Personally I have discussed this issue in depth with David Carson who is General Counsel for the US Copyright Office. Let's just say that Patrick and I disagree.

Viewing my images and having them in the cache is not a violation of copyright. Every image in my portfolio section contains clear notification that the images are indeed copyright protected. Further every page makes it quite clear. What is a violation is to Intentionally try a disable any kind of copyright protection.

Viewing my work for enjoyment or to find an image to license is encouraged and certainly why I put my images on my site. What Patrick has done in my book is like any other crime and trying to find some loophole in the law to defend the practice. The fact that you could steal and try and find a loophole in the law to allow it is simply wrong. The point of what I have on my site is to stop the majority of folks who may try and commit non willful infringement and to serve notice to folks that may think otherwise.

I am not trying to avoid this issue. I am however a very busy person trying to run a business and this serves little purpose. Ask yourselves one question. Do you think it is ok to try and steal? Should I break into someones house because I can?

The point is that there is no doubt that my work is something I care about and no doubt that it is something which I care about protecting because it is both my passion and it supports my family. The biggest issue for me is not trying to battle someone like Patrick. I do care about a publication or client using an image for financial gain without a license.

I hope I have answered anyone who has questions but I just don't see how this discussion serves anything positive. Trying to steal is wrong plain and simple regardless of the twisted justication and reasoning to do so.

Looking at the images and having them in the cache is part of the normal viewing process and very much OK. Trying to find ways to take an image or anything else for that matter which is clearly against the wishes of the owner is simply not ok.

Sincerely,


Seth

[wizwow]

What we who protect our images and work are trying to do is create a scenario where the "taking" of the image includes using more than the usually provided methods. Of course the image is in cache. Of course some guy with javascript experience can get it. Of course you can exploit the knowledge of browser mechanisms to "get around" the attempts at security we try to provide.

It is exactly that act of "getting around" that is the point. If we have tried to protect it, and one "goes around" then the presumption is that one had actual knowledge that a circumvention of the purpose and wishes of the presenter were usurped. That makes one a common thief.

So while we are debating the finer points of technology, the basic - fundamental question is "If I have gone to all these lengths to protect it and you take it, why do you feel you have a right to do that?" It is ultimately the basic, and very wrong, assumption that if it is on the web it is free that should be challenged and taught in our woefully inadequate Universities.

Bottom line on that: over one hundred users were tested with our method with virtually NO users able to get the images. They were professionals and blue collar people with "average" knowledge of the internet. Not coders, hackers and techies...

That being said, there are those who make a living out of spreading fear and hopelessness. Preaching that everyone who looks at your image is a potential thief who will rip you off at every opportunity is stock in trade for some "consultants" and "gurus."

And that is Crap.

Threatening copyright infringement on every download is laughable on the surface and saddeningly disengenuous upon closer inspection. Filing such a suit is very - very expensive. Winning is difficult at best without proven damages. But still the fear-mongers preach and gather their fees... I have attended a few such seminars at the local ASMP and found them to be laughably lame. (My Opinion.)

Most people will not steal your work. Most people are honest and respect ownership. I have a vague distrust of those who think "everyone else" is a creep - ya know.

Protect as best you can and then go on and work.
My last post on this topic. This is supposed to be a challenging and well thought our discussion which has turned into threats of lawsuits.

Strange...

Cheers

[lechti]

Nice to see so many views on the point of images copyright. I looked quickly thru the replies but did not see mentionned anywhere about image slincing. Sure that will make it more difficult to copy say 20 small images than one large one and then try to re-assemble the lot. A bit like a puzzle I suppose.

[SyrenSong]

I'd like to add a slightly different perspective into all this.

HOLDSTILL mentions bloggers making use of images from his/her(?) site. Why not use this to your advantage?

I've got a site where images are occasionally taken by bloggers and also posted in forums that allow this. I'm using it to my client's advantage.

When I see in my site logs that this has happened, I make a minor change to the image being linked to so that it contains the client's website address. Then I take a duplicate of the original image (before the site name was added, rename it, and rename the link from the page to the new graphic.

The image with the site addy now shows up on the blogger/forum page, and my client gets free advertising!

Sometimes you've just got to find ways to use this stuff to your advantage!

HTH!
S

[swstyles]

Great idea Syren!!!

Hopefully the blog isn't killing your client's bandwidth but if the return is reciprical traffic, then its bandwidth well spent.

[TesToh]

Hi wizwow,

I'm not sure if you have implemented the browser check on the demo site, but I'm still able to access the gallery pages with my NS4.7 and view source to get the image.

Another point is that you might want to restrict the site to strictly IE only. I'm still able to access the gallery, right-click, site-save-as, etc. with my IE-compatible browsers (eg. Opera).

Cheers,
TT

[tertius]

And please don't disable the <alt> or <ctrl> keys--be considerate of users who can't handle the physical demands of mousing and depend on keyboard shortcuts and hotkeys to function on the web who would otherwise want to buy from you--if you anger the wrong one, you might end up with an ADA suit for discriminating against them...(costly, whether or not you win; and then there's all the adverse media attention that goes with that kind of suit).

[J_Paul]

Here is a program that can keep viewers from taking anything from your site..

http://www.weblockpro.com

You can't even copy past the url. I'm only using IE, so I'm not sure how it works with other browers, but is something interesting.

[Narasinha]

Here is a program that can keep viewers from taking anything from your site..

http://www.weblockpro.com

You can't even copy past the url. I'm only using IE, so I'm not sure how it works with other browers, but is something interesting.

This program was mentioned in another forum about preventing people from stealing the text on your web site. As with anything else, there's no way to stop someone from having whatever you post on the web because in order for them to view it, you have to have the server send it to them.

As far as Weblock Pro being so secure, try putting +"weblock pro" +crack into Google and see what comes up. You can get around its protection scheme.

My advice: Watermark your images. If they're that important to you, then they should be worth the cost of registering the watermark to track. If you want to avoid printed copies, then put a big "SAMPLE" text ghosted onto the image along with your URL.

Oh, and the PhotoTool demo at http://thephototool.com/thephototool/test_protect/default.asp was easy to bypass with Opera 7. I simply switch from Author-mode CSS to User-mode CSS and selected "Accessibility Layout". Then I just right-clicked and saved the images.

[shyspinner]

I do like Syren does and take the free advertizing. I dont disable anything. Clients and surfers by the hundreds have told me how this just completely es off the surfer who uses a tabbed browser, and they have to close all browser windows in order to copy / paste any thing they are working on, and many of us do work on many things all at once. I didnt hear anyone mention slicing images. Does anyone do this? I just have my web url and a big ugly "sample" text on my graphics. If they are going to steal them, and go through all the trouble of doctoring them up to try and remove what Ive added to them, then there isnt much else I can do.

[Narasinha]

I do like Syren does and take the free advertizing. I dont disable anything. Clients and surfers by the hundreds have told me how this just completely es off the surfer who uses a tabbed browser, and they have to close all browser windows in order to copy / paste any thing they are working on, and many of us do work on many things all at once. I didnt hear anyone mention slicing images. Does anyone do this? I just have my web url and a big ugly "sample" text on my graphics. If they are going to steal them, and go through all the trouble of doctoring them up to try and remove what Ive added to them, then there isnt much else I can do.

I always have a dozen or so tabbed windows open in Opera. A site that messes with my windows is one to which I won't return. It does **ss me off completely. Disable certain keyboard options and I'm really gonna be ticked! Luckily, Opera lets you disable JavaScript partially so that it doesn't affect the right mouse button, etc. I think you're doing the best thing in placing the "sample" text across the front of the images, along with your URL. Why on earth do people go to so much trouble with the disabling scripts, etc, when it doesn't work in the end?

[redcircle]

I do like Syren does and take the free advertizing. I dont disable anything. Clients and surfers by the hundreds have told me how this just completely es off the surfer who uses a tabbed browser, and they have to close all browser windows in order to copy / paste any thing they are working on, and many of us do work on many things all at once. I didnt hear anyone mention slicing images. Does anyone do this? I just have my web url and a big ugly "sample" text on my graphics. If they are going to steal them, and go through all the trouble of doctoring them up to try and remove what Ive added to them, then there isnt much else I can do.

Slicing would work great if you are dealing with just a few images. I have over 9,000 images in my gallery and it would not only be time consuming but create larger downloads.

My view is the same as Syren. Free advertising.

[dealercrm]

If you want to implement the right-click-disable, fine. But try not to delude your client(s) into thinking this will stop people from getting the image. If it is displayed on screen... people can and will download it. Dispite any efforts you make. I agree with others in this thread... If they don;t want people to get the image then DO NOT put it on the web. Period, paragraph, end of story.


Totally agreed.

If they want it they will get it no matter what kind of JScript you write to block specific browser access.

Same goes for CSS, HTML, and linked JS files. Of course with linked JS and CSS you can make dynamic scripts that generate the file to limit the "referral" access and to elude the person trying to access the file.