Why watermark when you can stop right clicking??

Photolistic · November 7, 2006

Please help me understand?

Cameron · November 7, 2006

Photolistic wrote:

Please help me understand?

Right-clicking will stop a lot of people, but screen-captures are pretty easy to do and right-click protection won't stop that. Right-clicking is like a lock on the fence, but someone who is determined will just climb over the fence anyway. If the image can be displayed on the screen it can be captured.

I often wonder, however, if someone is THAT determined to get around the image protection would pay much for a print anyway...

Andy · November 7, 2006

In addition to the above, remember: when an image is displayed on the internet, to your viewer, the image is in their computer - savvy folks can dig it out of their temporary internet files. Also, right-click can be disabled by the viewer (by disabling javascript)... so, watermarking and right click, plus blocking originals (and sometimes larges) is a great combination of protection.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/image-protection

j-bo · November 7, 2006

I understand all that about protection and getting around it.

But.. how does one get the URL for the ORIGINAL file size?

Here is a post from someone on a different site.

Mr. Jbo I bout this photo http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2101305/358...532048/Original
Is there anyway I can get the photo without proof on it to save onto my computer? Or do i have to scan the photo when it comes in?

How they got the original file is something I don't get. I don't allow originals, only larges. I've never used firefox so I don't know if this is how one gets it? Surely the original isn't in their temp folder. I do have mine watermarked though.

I have all photo sharing turned off. External links turned off also.

Andy · November 7, 2006

j-bo wrote:

I understand all that about protection and getting around it.

But.. how does one get the URL for the ORIGINAL file size?

Here is a post from someone on a different site.

How they got the original file is something I don't get. I don't allow originals, only larges. I've never used firefox so I don't know if this is how one gets it? Surely the original isn't in their temp folder. I do have mine watermarked though.

I have all photo sharing turned off. External links turned off also.

That's not an Original, since you have Originals blocked. So that we don't have broken links, the /Original url still "works" though we only show the Large.

Clear as mud?

j-bo · November 7, 2006

Yeup. Clear. Thanks again. I seem to jump the gun without thinking. :hang

Andy · November 7, 2006

j-bo wrote:

Yeup. Clear. Thanks again. I seem to jump the gun without thinking. :hang

no problem

agunther · November 8, 2006

Actually I think the watermark is also useful for people using your images on their websites (linking them).
At least you get a way to display our url along with the image and who knows, one of their visitors might like it.

DTMPhotos · November 9, 2006

Proof does slow some down...

CSwinton wrote:

I often wonder, however, if someone is THAT determined to get around the image protection would pay much for a print anyway...

I hate to say it, but after I implemented the "proof" option, my sales went up about 10% and I actually had 2 clients email (one actually called) to complain that they couldn't print from their computers! Now it's important to know that they don't pay anything for me to take the portrait but only when they buy the prints. It amazed me that they saw nothing wrong with something that to me, is essentially stealing...Ah well...

D.

mrcoons · November 10, 2006

DTMPhotos wrote:

I hate to say it, but after I implemented the "proof" option, my sales went up about 10% and I actually had 2 clients email (one actually called) to complain that they couldn't print from their computers! Now it's important to know that they don't pay anything for me to take the portrait but only when they buy the prints. It amazed me that they saw nothing wrong with something that to me, is essentially stealing...Ah well...

D.

I agree, I have had the same comment made to me. I've always tried to keep my watermark small and out of the viewers way but I have been considering making it larger here lately. It may be that some just 'capture' it and live with it right now. Is there anyone who cares to offer their opinion about watermark size & location?

JimM · November 14, 2006

mrcoons wrote:

I agree, I have had the same comment made to me. I've always tried to keep my watermark small and out of the viewers way but I have been considering making it larger here lately. It may be that some just 'capture' it and live with it right now. Is there anyone who cares to offer their opinion about watermark size & location?

This is why I have been using the default PROOF watermark. I like how it is fairly large and across the center.

I saw some of the kids from the football I shot last night. The one kid said he couldn't copy the picture, I teased him and said "really?". Then the next one said he had that picture on his MySpace page. I said with the word "Proof" across it? He said, no, his parents bought the 4x6 print, so he scanned it. Makes me think I should just lower the price of the digital downloads.

Why watermark when you can stop right clicking??

Comments