Users able to Disable Right Click Download Protection Easily

psenior1

I'm not sure if this is a know security loophole (I'm not going to post how to do it), but a customer has just pointed out to me how easy it is to disable the right click download protection on SM galleries on both MAC and PC's. The client was proudly telling me how he'd and his friends had been downloading (albeit low res) images from their gallery so already had copiers of the pics.

If this is a known flaw is it something that is or has been looked into? I'm happy to pass on the details to any SM employees if they need it.

zacHer0

It is known that right-click protection is not foolproof and that there are ways around it. The best way to protect your images would be to use a combination of right-click protection, watermarks, and reducing the largest viewable image size down to something smaller than Original.

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/1230107-how-can-i-protect-my-images-

psenior1

Is there anything in the pipeline to protect against right click download that a user can't disable?

mbellot

psenior1 wrote: »

Is there anything in the pipeline to protect against right click download that a user can't disable?

The online solution that is 100% secure is to never upload your images to the internet in the first place.

If it's shown on their computer screen, they already have a local copy on their computer.

It just becomes a game of cat and mouse as to how hard it is for them to make it a permanent copy as opposed to a cached copy.

I strongly suggest you watermark all your images, it's far more effective than right click protection for deterring the behavior your clients are displaying.

It's a shame SM doesn't give all users the ability to protect their images from theft with watermarks, but apparently you have to spend $150/year or more to get that option.

denisegoldberg

psenior1 wrote: »

Is there anything in the pipeline to protect against right click download that a user can't disable?

It's really a shame that SmugMug calls the feature "right click protect" given that it isn't possible to protect an image that is shown on the web. The feature would be better named "right click warning" or "right click message" since it doesn't (and can't) protect anything.

--- Denise

psenior1

Thanks, I'm fully aware of how to protect my images - as Denise says the problem is probably down to the way the right click protection is worded.

AperturePlus

I could not agree with you more Denise.

tomoscott

mbellot wrote: »

I strongly suggest you watermark all your images, it's far more effective than right click protection for deterring the behavior your clients are displaying.

It's a shame SM doesn't give all users the ability to protect their images from theft with watermarks, but apparently you have to spend $150/year or more to get that option.

If you don't want to pay SmugMug to watermark your images, you can create a PhotoShop action to add a copyright info strip at the bottom of your images. I do this whenever I show my images on other sites. Here's an example.

I have to say, SmugMug's watermarking feature is the best I've found on any site. It allows you to customize it any way you want, and that's important if you don't want a large, ugly mark plastered all over your images.

In general, I find it amazing how many people [not the OP - just people in general] worry about people copying their images, but don't take the time + $35 to register them with the U.S. copyright office. I realize the procedure may be different in other countries, but in the U.S. at least, it's a fairly easy process. And once you have your images registered, anyone with financial resources would be crazy to try to save some money by stealing your images.

I agree completely with Denise about right-click "protection". I've been using a tool called Snagit for 3 or 4 years, so I haven't even used right click for any image captures in years.

AceCo55

tomoscott wrote: »

If you don't want to pay SmugMug to watermark your images, you can create a PhotoShop action to add a copyright info strip at the bottom of your images. I do this whenever I show my images on other sites. Here's an example.

I'm not trying to start a "war" on watermaking but this style of watermarking (ie at the bottom of an image) is not a security feature/technique ... which this thread is about. That location is excellent for advertising but is so easily cropped out it may as well not be there if the purpose was security.

A higher level of security would be afforded if the watermark were placed in the middle - people often say it ruins the photo ... but it is harder to remove and cannot be effectively cropped out.

So watermarking as a security feature has more things to consider than just putting one anywhere on an image. Also size, transparency, font selection, opacity.

tomoscott

AceCo55 wrote: »

I'm not trying to start a "war" on watermaking but this style of watermarking (ie at the bottom of an image) is not a security feature/technique ... which this thread is about. That location is excellent for advertising but is so easily cropped out it may as well not be there if the purpose was security.

A higher level of security would be afforded if the watermark were placed in the middle - people often say it ruins the photo ... but it is harder to remove and cannot be effectively cropped out.

So watermarking as a security feature has more things to consider than just putting one anywhere on an image. Also size, transparency, font selection, opacity.

I protect my images by registering them with the US Copyright Office. That's why I don't plaster a watermark in the middle of the image.

If a small mom and pop company uses my image, I'll negotiate with them. I've done this a few times. They pay a small fee, and get a new image from me to use on their site that has my copyright notice and my web site info.

If a larger company with resources steals one of my images, I'll go after them for the full statutory fine of $150,000 per image. In addition, if they remove the copyright notice by cropping it out, I'll go after them for another $25,000 per violation.

"Securing" an image by destroying it with a watermark is not an option for me. I prefer to secure my work by taking the time to properly register it. At $35 per year, that's a pretty reasonable option.

Note that if you don't register your work, it's still copyrighted. But the damages you can collect are only for "actual" damages. That will amount to no more than what you would have collected had you sold it under a regular licensing agreement.

I see you're a sports/events photographer, so watermarking in your field is a whole different thing. If you're worried about customers downloading the image so they don't have to buy it from you, smacking a watermark in the middle of the image makes lots of sense. But it doesn't work for "fine art" photography.

AceCo55

Aaaagh .... just lost my reply. So here is the short version.
Your strategy suits your situation and type of photography ... makes a lot of sense.
Mine suits me because the kids just tell me they screenshot any photo they want. So I'm going to bang the watermark in the centre.

The OP, and others, need to look at their situations and decide what combination of strategies they can live with and will work for them.
I just wanted to highlight that if people ONLY put a watermark along the bottom edge of their images, it is less secure than putting the image in the middle.
If they take the extra measures (as you have) then the watermark at the bottom serves its purpose of advertising and declaring ownership.