Thanks both of you. I *think* that's what Andy meant with his FAQ, but just worded it poorly.
Personally, I have no interest in cluttering up the interface either at the gallery or account level with the toggle unless there is a valid reason to do so.
I would actually prefer there to be a setting that disables downloading from 3rd party apps when originals are blocked. I believe there are apps out there that can currently download the non-original-sized-images without a site login, and I've never liked that.
That's really not possible Denise. Anything that a browser can see, a 3rd party app can see or download (as a browser is really just a 3rd party app too). So, you can't really prevent 3rd party apps from downloading the things that a browser can display.
That's really not possible Denise. Anything that a browser can see, a 3rd party app can see or download (as a browser is really just a 3rd party app too). So, you can't really prevent 3rd party apps from downloading the things that a browser can display.
That's really not possible Denise. Anything that a browser can see, a 3rd party app can see or download (as a browser is really just a 3rd party app too). So, you can't really prevent 3rd party apps from downloading the things that a browser can display.
As we've discussed John, this isn't strictly true. SmugMug could choose to disable links to original images in their API if "Protection" was turned on for a gallery. From my perspective, this would be keeping in the spirit of the word "Protection" even if this protection can technically be broken.
The author of windownload and cldownload has voluntarily set this restriction on his applications. I don't know if he's gotten a lot of backlash over it. (Photographers irate that they selected "Protection" and now people can't bulk download all of their images? Seems unlikely.)
As we've discussed John, this isn't strictly true. SmugMug could choose to disable links to original images in their API if "Protection" was turned on for a gallery. From my perspective, this would be keeping in the spirit of the word "Protection" even if this protection can technically be broken.
The author of windownload and cldownload has voluntarily set this restriction on his applications. I don't know if he's gotten a lot of backlash over it. (Photographers irate that they selected "Protection" and now people can't bulk download all of their images? Seems unlikely.)
Not worth implementing in my opinion, because it's easy to circumvent. Think about it. A browser is just a 3rd party app accessing the web. If it can download the images, so can any other app.
In my opinion, implementing so called protections that are easy to circumvent is a waste of time and gives people a false sense of security. I put right-click protection in this same category. It actually causes security problems. Do you know how many Smugmug sites have right-click protection ON and originals enabled for download? The answer is lots. And, the only reason they've done that is the right-click protection gave them a false sense of security so they didn't look further.
If you want your images protected in the API and on the general web, restrict the max size available, put a password on the galleries and only let in people you trust or watermark the images or some combination of the above. Those are the only real protections.
Comments
Personally, I have no interest in cluttering up the interface either at the gallery or account level with the toggle unless there is a valid reason to do so.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I kind of thought that might be the case.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
As we've discussed John, this isn't strictly true. SmugMug could choose to disable links to original images in their API if "Protection" was turned on for a gallery. From my perspective, this would be keeping in the spirit of the word "Protection" even if this protection can technically be broken.
The author of windownload and cldownload has voluntarily set this restriction on his applications. I don't know if he's gotten a lot of backlash over it. (Photographers irate that they selected "Protection" and now people can't bulk download all of their images? Seems unlikely.)
In my opinion, implementing so called protections that are easy to circumvent is a waste of time and gives people a false sense of security. I put right-click protection in this same category. It actually causes security problems. Do you know how many Smugmug sites have right-click protection ON and originals enabled for download? The answer is lots. And, the only reason they've done that is the right-click protection gave them a false sense of security so they didn't look further.
If you want your images protected in the API and on the general web, restrict the max size available, put a password on the galleries and only let in people you trust or watermark the images or some combination of the above. Those are the only real protections.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question