Right click should be disabled

Rick

For those of us who don't necessarily want viewers to easily capture images it would be nice if SmugMug would disable right click.

pathfinder

Rick wrote:

For those of us who don't necessarily want viewers to easily capture images it would be nice if SmugMug would disable right click.

Good idea -- I will discuss it with management

wxwax

It looks like power users are able to disable it. Andy has.

Dach

It's not foolproof. If someone wants to use right-click, all they'd have to do is turn off Javascript, and voila! right click works again. Or, they can just save the picture from their local cache. The only way I can think of to keep people from taking pictures off the net is to cram them all in a flash movie.
Disabling right-click would only stop really lazy people Smugmug could, however, create a special right-click menu that would allow people to order prints, post comments, &c. So, I'm not saying it's a bad idea as such, but it will not stop people from taking pix off the sites.

Seamaiden

Why not just watermark 'em?

fish

Even if you disable right click, someone can still do a screen capture.

SavannahMan

fish wrote:

Even if you disable right click, someone can still do a screen capture.

Okay, how 'bout Right Click = Trace IP = Big guy knocks on door 30 min. later and breaks Right Knee.... not prevention, deterrence....

fish

SavannahMan wrote:

Okay, how 'bout Right Click = Trace IP = Big guy knocks on door 30 min. later and breaks Right Knee.... not prevention, deterrence....

How about don't worry about it. That's one fine looking babe in yer avatar. Can I see a fullsized version? I lost my copy. :

Seamaiden

Heh.. I betcha I know where he found her, too. Wanna make morphases, anyone? Good, clean fun!

fish

Seamaiden wrote:

Heh.. I betcha I know where he found her, too. Wanna make morphases, anyone? Good, clean fun!

cool...that is fun!

SavannahMan

Da Hot CHick

fish wrote:

cool...that is fun!

Actually found her surfing years ago... It was love at first sight.

Rick

SavannahMan wrote:

Actually found her surfing years ago... It was love at first sight.

Very frightening to me since you are located fairly close by -- I'm in Augusta!

But glad to know you are in my corner on this issue.

wxwax

Uh-oh, a Georgia convention is growing.

SavannahMan

Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah. We need a Macon and a Brunswick next....

fish

SavannahMan wrote:

Actually found her surfing years ago... It was love at first sight.

Nice! Very fetching.

Seamaiden

Heh, and after what I've been reading about what all y'all's state legislature spends their time worrying about.. (sez she in the land of Ahnoldt!).

wxwax

Seamaiden wrote:

Heh, and after what I've been reading about what all y'all's state legislature spends their time worrying about.. (sez she in the land of Ahnoldt!).

I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is still alive and well in Georgia.

Some local behavior, however, calls into question the accuracy of Darwinism.

Story #1


Story #2

What I like about the second story is that after the store refused to accept the $1 million bill, the woman asked them if they could break it. :roll :lol

Andy

it is a pro-feature on smug

but look - if someone wants my phot0s, they'll get em b/c i'm always promoting my stuff everywhere. but i only shot 800x600 and they can't make that into a file that prints big so i'm not concerned.

it's a tradeoff - the internet is a great tool but ....

Seamaiden

wxwax wrote:

I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is still alive and well in Georgia.

Some local behavior, however, calls into question the accuracy of Darwinism.

Story #1


Story #2

What I like about the second story is that after the store refused to accept the $1 million bill, the woman asked them if they could break it. :roll :lol

God love the truly simple! Yeah, I, too, died when I heard about that. I was referring to this (sorry, don't have the direct news link handy) about women's piercings in good ol' GA. I still can't sort out why only for women.

SavannahMan

Seamaiden wrote:

God love the truly simple! Yeah, I, too, died when I heard about that. I was referring to this (sorry, don't have the direct news link handy) about women's piercings in good ol' GA. I still can't sort out why only for women.

I can only conclude one thing. There has been a rash of intern genital piercing-meets-braces incidents in the Georgia House. Either that or they're having problems in the Courthouse with those wild Atlanta girls setting off the metal detectors. Either way my questions are two-fold. 1) will there be a buyback program like they do with illegal guns here? (turn in your piercing for a $25 Kroger gift certificate) and 2) will police start to do "spot inspections" at roadblocks and routine traffic stops¿

cmr164

Seamaiden wrote:

God love the truly simple! Yeah, I, too, died when I heard about that. I was referring to this (sorry, don't have the direct news link handy) about women's piercings in good ol' GA. I still can't sort out why only for women.

Because when it came up for a vote and the good ole boy legislators were asked to consider male genital piercing no one raised his hand. They were all using their hands to protect the jewels.

(and the female legislators *wanted* their male colleagues to experience genital piercing)

Seamaiden

SavannahMan wrote:

I can only conclude one thing. There has been a rash of intern genital piercing-meets-braces incidents in the Georgia House. Either that or they're having problems in the Courthouse with those wild Atlanta girls setting off the metal detectors. Either way my questions are two-fold. 1) will there be a buyback program like they do with illegal guns here? (turn in your piercing for a $25 Kroger gift certificate) and 2) will police start to do "spot inspections" at roadblocks and routine traffic stops¿

OH! OH!! OH!!! i'M DYING HERE, DYING I TELL YOU!!!! :roll

Baldy

Rick wrote:

For those of us who don't necessarily want viewers to easily capture images it would be nice if SmugMug would disable right click.

It turns out this is quite the hot topic.

While some people are passionate about it, the majority don't want it because it interferes with getting properties for linking to forums, saving back to your local disk, etc.

Our first crack at it was to write Javascript for pro users and you're right, if you turn off Javascript the protection is void. We have another trick we could do and probably will when we get a chance, which is to save another, blank image, when you do right-click save as — but fish is right that you can still do prtscr to get around it.

(Power users can add javascript to their cobranding to block image clicks, btw.)

We think watermarking is the best protection (it comes with pro accounts), but unfortunately it does hamper viewing them. We'll make watermarking customizable in the future.

And all users can turn off access to their high resolution originals.

We may enable people to block access to large images in the future too.

I hope this helps,
Baldy

damonff

Power
(Power users can add javascript to their cobranding to block image clicks, btw.)

Hey Baldy. I'm a power user. How do I add this to my cobranding?

scrooks

Yes, better watermarking!

Baldy wrote:

We think watermarking is the best protection (it comes with pro accounts), but unfortunately it does hamper viewing them. We'll make watermarking customizable in the future.

I find the right-click protection that's available right now (for Pro accounts) is sufficient, combined with not allowing viewing of full-size pictures. It stops the casual surfer, which is 90% (or more) of the people looking at my pictures. And if they're not stopped, the best they're going to get is an 800 pixel maximum shot, which they're welcome to if they're that persistent.

But what would make things 100% great is if we could do a little more with the watermarking, as mentioned by Baldy. I find the "PROOF" watermark to be far too overwhelming and distracting. Instead, I want to be able to put a small "Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Crooks" down in the bottom right of the picture (on screen, but not on the prints!). That way if someone steals the 800-pixel image and prints it, they'll still have that there to remind them. If they then go to the trouble of cropping it out, that's okay, I've made my point and I don't think I was going to sell anything to them anyway.

So I'm eagerly awaiting better watermarking!

mercphoto

Watermarks

scrooks wrote:

I find the right-click protection that's available right now (for Pro accounts) is sufficient, combined with not allowing viewing of full-size pictures... I find the "PROOF" watermark to be far too overwhelming and distracting. Instead, I want to be able to put a small "Copyright (c) 2004 by Steve Crooks" down in the bottom right of the picture (on screen, but not on the prints!).

This brings up some interesting points. I don't want people right-clicking either. So I turn it off, and don't allow viewing of originals. I'm torn about watermarking. It can be distracting.

For those that do commissioned shots for people and put them on smugmug (probably in password protected galleries for their client), do you watermark or not? Do you trust they will buy and not download?

What about stock photos you put up?

Lastly, for commissioned shots (not stock shots) do you put a copyright or your name on the shot or not?

Thanks,

lynnesite

mercphoto wrote:

This brings up some interesting points. I don't want people right-clicking either. So I turn it off, and don't allow viewing of originals. I'm torn about watermarking. It can be distracting.

For those that do commissioned shots for people and put them on smugmug (probably in password protected galleries for their client), do you watermark or not? Do you trust they will buy and not download?

What about stock photos you put up?

Lastly, for commissioned shots (not stock shots) do you put a copyright or your name on the shot or not?

Thanks,

When I first moved my stuff to smugmug I watermarked damn near everything. Now I'm watermarking almost nothing, because the PROOF obscures the details of the image. If there was an opacity slider or button where it could be dropped to 20-40% gray, then I'd probably watermark my event stuff, but not the stock stuff.

I can put my own imprint but would rather keep the stock stuff clean.

muddyknees

how about making disable-right-click an OPTION?

pathfinder wrote:

Good idea -- I will discuss it with management

Only remaining issue then would be which way to set the default for new users.

Personally I like it when my friends tell me they're using one of my photos for their screen-saver or desktop or that they've printed it out. I don't want to make it too hard for them to do so.

mercphoto

Watermarking

Baldy wrote:

It turns out this is quite the hot topic.

We think watermarking is the best protection (it comes with pro accounts), but unfortunately it does hamper viewing them. We'll make watermarking customizable in the future.

We may enable people to block access to large images in the future too.

I can think of three watermarking options that might be good for a majority of people:

1) the current way
2) the current way, but as outlined letters
3) four smaller "PROOF" words spread around the image

Also, the option to block the large image would be cool. In fact, if I could do that, I would not worry about the proof options at all.

PerezDesignGroup

mercphoto wrote:

Also, the option to block the large image would be cool. In fact, if I could do that, I would not worry about the proof options at all.

That is a very juicy idea. It could preserve bandwidth for all parties as well.

landrum

Baldy wrote:

We may enable people to block access to large images in the future too.
Baldy

I would like to be able to block access to large images as well as originals. I think that may be the best solution for everyone.

Laurie