Right-click protection off-site?
/forum/topic/1153170/0

1
       2       end

gschlact
Registered: Jun 04, 2011
Total Posts: 792
Country: United States

Right-click protection off-site?

So we all probably know the Smugmug has right-click protection on their site while people view your sports photos, and additional ability to limit viewing size (pixels). Despite this, I recently discovered that if you use the Share link of a photo to post the image in a forum or blog, or even to send to someone, that the actual image IS loaded into the browser with no remaining protection. So while I as the owner can choose to turm off sharing by viewers on smugmug portfolio, I am hosed if I want to publicly share them. (I keep my watermark on right bottom which mostly allows scammers to Photoshop them.)

So, does anyone know a way to achieve right-click protection any other way when embedding photo on external sites? As you see above, my assumption that the smugmug display technology extended was erroneous.

Guy



Russ Isabella
Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Total Posts: 9954
Country: United States

Guy,

It's been said many times here that the only way to assure your photos aren't used in ways you don't want them to be used is to not post them. Right-click is only one means of access, up to an including actually taking a photo of your photo on the screen (reference Paul for that one).



gschlact
Registered: Jun 04, 2011
Total Posts: 792
Country: United States

Fair statement, but technical deterrent is always helpful too which is why I ask.

Guy



Jefferson
Registered: May 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4494
Country: United States

If you can see it...you can get it...just a fact of life...



ian408
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Total Posts: 1124
Country: United States


What you're suggesting is that sites you want to share images with honor the protections you've set on the gallery. Doesn't really work that way. And just like checking the "don't track me" option in the browser, it would really only be a request and not a requirement.

I cannot think of a way, other than changing how images are shared, to do that.

You'd be much better off sharing smaller images or lower resolutions.



lukeb
Registered: Nov 13, 2010
Total Posts: 1804
Country: United States

Jefferson wrote:
If you can see it...you can get it...just a fact of life...


+1



gschlact
Registered: Jun 04, 2011
Total Posts: 792
Country: United States

ian408 wrote:

What you're suggesting is that sites you want to share images with honor the protections you've set on the gallery. Doesn't really work that way. And just like checking the "don't track me" option in the browser, it would really only be a request and not a requirement.

I cannot think of a way, other than changing how images are shared, to do that.

You'd be much better off sharing smaller images or lower resolutions.

I was thinking it would be great if there were to embed the same player technology that smugmug actually uses and then fill the hosting forums "frame" with the stream instead of the jpeg. As such there would be an actual image to save. I realize a screen print etc would still be possible. I wasn't trying to get smugmug to protect on the external site, just use their same display technology.



Hammy
Registered: May 21, 2002
Total Posts: 2843
Country: temp

Start > All Programs > Accessories > Snipping Tool

As mentioned, if you can see it, it can be grabbed...Windows 7 (maybe Vista too) gives you the tools to do it.

If your watermark is only across the bottom, then it doesn't require PS to remove it, but just a simple crop.

Place your watermark across the center of the photo, or in multiple places. Yes, you will get a couple complaints that it goes across their face, but it shouldn't be massive. This still won't stop people from publishing your (my) photos in an event program or even the Yellow Pages (yes, I'm serious).

But with the watermark over more of the photo, it will keep 99% of the people honest. The other 1% you can not do anything about, they won't ever pay anything and will either try to get rid of the watermark, or simply don't care about it. Again, to thwart this 1%, you have to sacrifice the other 99% and not post online at all.



don mash
Registered: Aug 02, 2007
Total Posts: 447
Country: United States

Hammy,.

I do the watermark all over the photo, horizontal top to bottom, and they take them all the time especially the kids for their facebook photos. I would bet that 80% of the football team that I shoot has them as their profile pics and they all have my logo on them. Its a part of shooting in 2012



Hammy
Registered: May 21, 2002
Total Posts: 2843
Country: temp

Don,

I agree - we get thousands of pix posted online from cell phone grabs of our viewstations or online. The trick is to get that to work for you.

This year, we'll make it easier for customers to get their facebook photo... give it to them. But doing so gets me their email address, they'll automatically be 'Liking' my corporate page and with the watermark done right, it's free marketing for us!

You're right, we're in changing times - digitally of course - which is so hard to controll (ask the audio industry.) So we need to stop fighting it, and work toward a merger that benefits both parties.



don mash
Registered: Aug 02, 2007
Total Posts: 447
Country: United States

Hammy,

That's a great idea! I am going to look into that. Get a free facebook photo but simply liking us.....I will have to see how that works.

Again I say, this seems to me to be the single best place to get actual shooters to give advice on so many things related to photography.

Thanks Hammy and FM



Carl Auer
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Total Posts: 9620
Country: United States

I moved this from sports because I think you might get more helpful answers in the Pro Corner. Personally, I would not use Smugmug. In the past I have put a clear gif over images to stop right clicking, but nothing is fool proof. If someone wants your image, there are ways.



gschlact
Registered: Jun 04, 2011
Total Posts: 792
Country: United States

Carl- thanks and clever idea on the gif.
Hammy- Dow do you automate the FB Like <-> email <-> download process?

Guy



alohadave
Registered: Jul 26, 2005
Total Posts: 843
Country: United States

gschlact wrote:
Fair statement, but technical deterrent is always helpful too which is why I ask.

Guy


No it's not. Even with right-click protection, when they view the picture, their browser needs to download a copy of the picture to be able to display it. When that happens, it's already in their browser cache.



BluesWest
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 748
Country: United States

No it's not. Even with right-click protection, when they view the picture, their browser needs to download a copy of the picture to be able to display it. When that happens, it's already in their browser cache.

+1. I'm surprised that most photographers -- including those who have their own web sites -- don't understand how their internet browsers work.

John



Hammy
Registered: May 21, 2002
Total Posts: 2843
Country: temp

gschlact wrote:
Hammy- Dow do you automate the FB Like <-> email <-> download process?
Guy



Do I, or How do I?

Either way, yes it will be automated. My programmer and I will be working on that over the next couple months before the start of our main season in January.

For the volume that we expect to generate, it'll have to be automated. We photograph over 60,000 competitors from 50+ countries in just 4 months, so if only 1/10th sign up for a 'free' photo, then we'd be busy! But we'll simply generate a script that we can run when we get back to the office that will fire all of them out unattended. That's the nice thing about running a completely custom website, is that we can add/change anything on the fly!



gschlact
Registered: Jun 04, 2011
Total Posts: 792
Country: United States

Dave,
Correct with a normal picture whhich was why I was hoping the Smugmug display technology would squirt the represented image into the browser without actual image download. I know this leaves screen capture exposed etc.

Guy



Shutterbug2006
Registered: Jun 03, 2010
Total Posts: 999
Country: Canada

If I think the shots I want to upload are that good then I only upload highly compressed images so they look fine on the monitor, but for any other use they'll look like crap.

Sadly, no matter what safeguards are put in place, someone will always find a way around the restrictions either by exploiting loopholes, or by brute force.



alohadave
Registered: Jul 26, 2005
Total Posts: 843
Country: United States

gschlact wrote:
Dave,
Correct with a normal picture whhich was why I was hoping the Smugmug display technology would squirt the represented image into the browser without actual image download. I know this leaves screen capture exposed etc.

Guy


There's no way to display anything without downloading it. There's no 'squirt' function or anything like that.



Ben Horne
Registered: Jan 10, 2002
Total Posts: 11710
Country: United States

The whole right click protection thing is sort of like copy protection in the record or movie industry. In some ways, it just annoys people, and makes them want to go out of their way to take the image even if they didn't want to in the first place.



1
       2       end