I'm Very Upset! :(

PAFirefighter11

I upgraded to a Power Account recently to block photos from being saved when I send them to models. I sent the last model I worked with a link to the album with her photos. I do this so the model can choose the photos she wants me to edit. It is listed as being protected.

Just about 1 min ago I was looking at her MySpace. What's there? A photo from OUR shoot, unedited, with no credit to me. This is the precise reason I upgraded to Power...

Andy

Hi Rick, I'm upset, too That the perception of right click is that it's really good protection, when in fact, it's just a mild deterrent.

Read more: http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/04/right-click-protection-and-image-security/

I'm here for your questions.

PAFirefighter11

Andy wrote:

Hi Rick, I'm upset, too That the perception of right click is that it's really good protection, when in fact, it's just a mild deterrent.

Read more: http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/04/right-click-protection-and-image-security/

I'm here for your questions.

Hey Andy. Thanks for the info. I did read the specifics regarding this. I read that if you right click and save as, you get the pop-up if Java is enabled. If they are able to save the image, it ends up being a blank document. Is that not true anymore?

The model is NOT tech savvy at all, so I doubt she was able to do any Temp. Internet File browsing, or other bypasses to obtain the image.

Is there anything else I can do aside from upgrading to Pro and adding a Watermark? I always have my photos listed XL max.

jfriend

Andy wrote:

Hi Rick, I'm upset, too That the perception of right click is that it's really good protection, when in fact, it's just a mild deterrent.

Read more: http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/04/right-click-protection-and-image-security/

I'm here for your questions.

Andy, that Blog article says that right-click protection "can be turned off by disabling javascript".

That is not really the story. The copyright message can be turned off, but a user who turns off javascript and then right-clicks and saves to their hard disk will just end up with a blank GIF image so the protection wasn't actually turned off by disabling javascript. I'm with the general point of the article that right-click protection is only a mild deterrent at best, but that one point about JS isn't quite right so it might be good if someone could update the blog article.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

Andy, that Blog article says that right-click protection "can be turned off by disabling javascript".

That is not really the story. The copyright message can be turned off, but a user who turns off javascript and then right-clicks and saves to their hard disk will just end up with a blank GIF image so the protection wasn't actually turned off by disabling javascript. I'm with the general point of the article that right-click protection is only a mild deterrent at best, but that one point about JS isn't quite right so it might be good if someone could update the blog article.

Thanks for pointing out my fail Edited/fixed :jfriend

Andy

PAFirefighter11 wrote:

Hey Andy. Thanks for the info. I did read the specifics regarding this. I read that if you right click and save as, you get the pop-up if Java is enabled. If they are able to save the image, it ends up being a blank document. Is that not true anymore?

The model is NOT tech savvy at all, so I doubt she was able to do any Temp. Internet File browsing, or other bypasses to obtain the image.

Is there anything else I can do aside from upgrading to Pro and adding a Watermark? I always have my photos listed XL max.

Where's the link to her photos on your site?

PAFirefighter11

Andy wrote:

Where's the link to her photos on your site?

http://pafirefighter11.smugmug.com/gallery/6866089_TkC8c

wslam

PAFirefighter11 wrote:

http://pafirefighter11.smugmug.com/gallery/6866089_TkC8c

A simple screen capture will allow her to save the photo. There is really no way to protect anyone from stealing your images.

Andy

wslam wrote:

A simple screen capture will allow her to save the photo. There is really no way to protect anyone from stealing your images.

Example:



Pro account, watermark the images, + RCP.

mbellot

PAFirefighter11 wrote:

I do this so the model can choose the photos she wants me to edit. It is listed as being protected.

If they are only online for her to pick which ones to edit then I would watermark them prior to uploading since you don't have a Pro account.

PAFirefighter11

Thanks guys. If I could afford a Pro upgrade I would! I have my mothers husband about to purchase a Pro account himself lol.

I think I'm just going to start watermarking all the images in Photoshop, OR making contact sheets for her to choose from instead.

Photographer Spock

Flippin' Kids

Andy wrote:

Example:



Pro account, watermark the images, + RCP.

I to have a pro account. During a browse of the kids I shoot myspace pages I found more than several of my images. One kid did just that. The screen capture. I tried it and got just the hyper text but he found one that would work. I had to do the one thing I hated most. A watermark right down the middle. Even then they can use the image with just that. After a short chat from the Deputy Sheriff to the kids they realized what could happen. Like that will do any good.

jfriend

Photographer Spock wrote:

I to have a pro account. During a browse of the kids I shoot myspace pages I found more than several of my images. One kid did just that. The screen capture. I tried it and got just the hyper text but he found one that would work. I had to do the one thing I hated most. A watermark right down the middle. Even then they can use the image with just that. After a short chat from the Deputy Sheriff to the kids they realized what could happen. Like that will do any good.

Sometimes I wonder if people get so offended by someone borrowing a watermarked image that they fail to think through what is actually best for business.

Hmmm, I've got a teenager with a facebook account. There's no way they are going to buy anything - they just don't spend money on images. They will either try to take something or just do nothing.

So, my two choices are:

1) I put a tasteful watermark on the images that establishes the fact that the images belong to me and also promotes my business and the teenager uses that on their facebook page.

2) They do nothing with your images on facebook because you sicked the sheriff on them.

Is it possible that #1 is better for business?

peestandingup

jfriend wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if people get so offended by someone borrowing a watermarked image that they fail to think through what is actually best for business.

Hmmm, I've got a teenager with a facebook account. There's no way they are going to buy anything - they just don't spend money on images. They will either try to take something or just do nothing.

So, my two choices are:

1) I put a tasteful watermark on the images that establishes the fact that the images belong to me and also promotes my business and the teenager uses that on their facebook page.

2) They do nothing with your images on facebook because you sicked the sheriff on them.

Is it possible that #1 is better for business?

Yes, absolutely. There's no need to sick the police on everyone that makes a crappy quality screen grab of your images. That's not gonna do anything besides piss a bunch of people off who will never even think about doing business with you ever again.

My advice is to just accept the fact that people can/will get a version of your images in some form if you choose to upload them to the web whether you like it or not. So you might as well use it to your advantage by watermarking your name on them (tastefully, not plastered all over) & welcome this kinda stuff. A kid putting these low-res images on their Facebook isn't gonna hurt you or your business. If anything, it'll help by getting your name out there. You cant buy publicity like that.

Get over it, dude.

devbobo

jfriend wrote:

Andy, that Blog article says that right-click protection "can be turned off by disabling javascript".

That is not really the story. The copyright message can be turned off, but a user who turns off javascript and then right-clicks and saves to their hard disk will just end up with a blank GIF image so the protection wasn't actually turned off by disabling javascript. I'm with the general point of the article that right-click protection is only a mild deterrent at best, but that one point about JS isn't quite right so it might be good if someone could update the blog article.

If right-click protection is disabled by disabling javascript (or other means), from firefox a user has right-click access to 'View Page Info'...clicking the 'Media' tab displays all media loaded in this page.

jfriend

devbobo wrote:

If right-click protection is disabled by disabling javascript (or other means), from firefox a user has right-click access to 'View Page Info'...clicking the 'Media' tab displays all media loaded in this page.

I don't want you to misunderstand my thoughts on right-click protection. It's a very minor deterrent at best. There are at least 20 ways around it. My only point about the article was that the actual right-click protection that Smugmug implements (transparent GIF over the main image) is not circumvented by turning off javascript. There are, indeed, 20 other ways around it, but the article suggested that turning off javascript was one of those ways and it is not. That's the only inaccuracy I thought was misleading.

FYI, the Page Info screen (one of the 20 ways around the right click protection) is in the Tools menu in Firefox so it's accessible regardless of the javascript setting and regardless of right-click blocking.

FYI, there are some sites that refuse to implement right-click protection because it's such a weak deterrent, yet it leads customers to believe that they have a lot more protection that they actually do.

devbobo

jfriend wrote:

FYI, the Page Info screen (one of the 20 ways around the right click protection) is in the Tools menu in Firefox so it's accessible regardless of the javascript setting and regardless of right-click blocking.

FYI, there are some sites that refuse to implement right-click protection because it's such a weak deterrent, yet it leads customers to believe that they have a lot more protection that they actually do.

ah, there it is...stupid inconsistent interface...I was looking under View where 'View Source' is.

Personally, I wish we didn't have it....as I know that many many people have a false sense of security.