Topic: No Right Clicking

[beck]

To right click or not to right click, that is the question.

I got to thinking just how easy it is to steal someone's work by simply right clicking the image and saving it to your files on your computer.  And because those images are often scanned and uploaded to a semi large file, on your blog, website, etc., for better viewing pleasures...I like to scan mine at 600x600...sometimes even at 700...and I think that is just enough resolution for it to be lifted and put into Photoshop, played with and resized even larger. In other words, it is like open season for some mook with nothing better to do, stealing work and calling one of our photographs, their own, and making money off of it. Something to that affect. I've been seeing this very thing and folks discussing the matter at Flibber....not that that means a whole lot. I even applied that space ball to my photos there so none can be downloaded...well, I did...and not like they can't be jerked off from my blog. Hell, I don't know...

I've come across this no right click feature here and there, but only with certain websites featuring archival works from the Masters, etc., for example, Roger Ballen's website has that feature. Well, it does allow the thumbnails....but they are very tiny.

But I've never experienced no right clicking with any of you and your work and wanted to know, is this something you and I should think about doing? Do you often find yourselves thinking this might happen to your work? Had you the means to a reliable script for HTML to disable right clicking, would you apply it?

I know of no full proof plan, but javascript.internet dot com has one, but again, how reliable it is, I'm not sure.

http://javascript.internet.com/page-details/no-right-click.html

Something to think about. Interesting to see what you all might say in the matter...

[dave miller]

It’s something I used to do, but no longer bother with. There are so many ways to defeat that block, it isn’t worth bothering with. Any reproduction from such a tiny file, even with the help of resizing software will be of abysmal quality; unless the original was from a Holga of course, in which case nothing will change.

[Francois]

Blocking the right click won't stop someone who really want your picture from taking it. There are easy ways around it since it uses the javascript engine (just open your browser's options and unclick the javascript button... not very hard to do).
The other trick I saw was to split your photo into a mosaic of smaller parts (some programs do this automatically). This is used by LucasArts on their websites. Makes it a lot harder for the average Joe to get your images as many think they have to right-click every little part, save it, open Photoshop and re-assemble the tiny parts... But, for those who know the trick, they are just as easy to swipe (press shift+printscreen on the keyboard... it's just over insert... open the shop and paste the entire screen view. crop and save.)

The best way to protect is probably to watermark the images. Or use the invisible Digimark stamp.
But I read something on Lockergnome that might be of some interest after all:

More people are creating online content now than ever before, but broadcasting your work out to the masses isn’t necessarily the safest thing to do. If your work has ever been ripped off, then you’re familiar with how irritating it can be. Some people feel like they can get away with certain things online, but it’s not a bad idea to call them on it when they do something that’s uncalled for. Your content is your content, and you should receive the ultimate credit for what you originally created. Identifying and protecting your content in an accurate way can sometimes be a slippery slope, but Numly will work to protect you.

They assign Electronic Serial Numbers to the digital content that you distribute, and you can sort of view these ESNs as bar codes for your work. If you ever run into an issue where proof of copyright is a necessity, then anyone can just enter your ESN on the Numly Web site in order to verify it. These numbers also allow you to track your content viewings and ratings, so there’s much more here than just content protection. This service is perfect for blog postings, podcasts, videos, software, and so on.

Here's the link http://channels.lockergnome.com/windows/archives/20060901_numly.phtml

I never used their system, but it looks good on the screen... you might want to look into it.

[Ed Wenn]

If you keep things down to 700-800 pixels (and 72-150 dpi) at most then all people will be able to do is use them on a computer. They'll be tiny when printed. If you upload larger images then obviously you run the risk, but at the low resolutions that you use, you should be OK.

[dave miller]

I agree with what the others have said, but in order not to confuse the issue must point out that the dpi setting is irrelevant when submitting images to the web; only pixels count. Or have I now confused the issue.

[Francois]

That's right Dave, screen don't have a "real" DPI setting... it just varies with the screen resolution and the screen size.
That's why a Mac has 72dpi while a PC has 75... all while using the exact same screen!
People don't have to see a huge picture on their screen to enjoy your portfolio. Many who still have dial-up tend to like smaller images.

But if you want the ultimate in protection, you could do your portfolio as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file. You will be able to manage the printing rights with a very strong password protection system. It will be viewable in some browsers without transfering the whole thing.

[Andrew]

I just looked at your blog and you haven't blocked the right click... I think that's the correct decision.

Bottom line is that if you really want to protect your work, the only way is don't post it at all.  But hey, where's the fun in that?

[Skorj]

To right click or not to right click, that is the question.

As others have said, right-click banning is easy to defeat. Flash though is a bit harder:

http://fotologue.jp/artsyken#/791898/899435

I was informed a few weeks ago someone had compiled a book of my work on Gunkanjima. I only found this out when I was the one accused. Made me giggle.

You put it out there, laying on the internet unprotected, expect it to get stolen I suppose. If you cannot cope with this concept, either lock it down professionally (as per above options), or drop back to schlepping your portfolio around to galleries for exposure.

[Francois]

For protecting images and portfolios, I found a few other things that might be of some interest.
Many sites I found point to the technology developed by http://www.artistscope.net/
They have a Java based encryption system that even prevents the dreaded printscreen button.
It seems to be very efficient (and expensive). The only thing I don't like about it is that it uses Java, something I keep disabled on my machine at all times to avoid possible virus infections. So even if it seems like a good protection, I can't see any of the images...

The other thing I found is a little program that converts Jpeg to Shockwave Flash. It's called Quick Jpeg to SWF converter. I will say it's not the best installer in the world. It lacks an uninstaller, but does the job. You drag over it a Jpeg file and it creates in the same folder as your original a shockwave file. And, it's cardware... http://www.zarinmedia.com/software/

Another one I just tried, (a bit nicer but shareware) is the www.swfx.org Java SWFimage program. This one at least allowes you to set the compression level and doesn't need an installer/uninstaller. On the downside, it's shareware.

Last but not least if the Flash Image builder http://www.gfx2swf.com/
Shareware, nice install and uninstall. But better than the others, it allowes you to protect images from extraction, allowes to add links to images and auto generates the HTML code for them! Worth looking into it.

So, there you have it... I think I went around all the options available...
I hope you will find it useful.