SEAN432
11-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Basically is there any way to make am <img> tag not copyable from the client side? Thanks
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Dont steal my image...how
Lerura
11-06-2005, 04:08 PM
No!
You can do a lot to make it harder to copy the image, but it is impossible to prevent it.
e.g. a screenshot can always get the graphics and there is no way to disable a screenshot.
You can do a lot to make it harder to copy the image, but it is impossible to prevent it.
e.g. a screenshot can always get the graphics and there is no way to disable a screenshot.
LiLcRaZyFuZzY
11-06-2005, 04:29 PM
The image is always available on the clients machine, because the browser puts it in the cache anyway!
Your best solution would be to put a copyright note, and to watermark the pictures that you don't want people to use, and only make the originals available for people who log in, or who buy them, or your clients, etc..
Your best solution would be to put a copyright note, and to watermark the pictures that you don't want people to use, and only make the originals available for people who log in, or who buy them, or your clients, etc..
thewebman
11-16-2005, 11:15 AM
or someone could read through your source code. example: your website name is www.ursitename.com and you have <img src="imgname.gif"> in your code. someone can read through your source code and find that and type in the exact URL into their browser (www.ursitename.com/imgname.gif)!!!
Robert Wellock
11-16-2005, 12:20 PM
No! The next person that asks that I will turn into a Frog!
LiLcRaZyFuZzY
11-16-2005, 12:20 PM
and i'll smash that frog
Robert Wellock
11-16-2005, 12:28 PM
Deal!
JAPerson
11-16-2005, 12:29 PM
Basically is there any way to make am <img> tag not copyable from the client side? Thanks
As already mentioned, there is no fool-proof way to do this, but there are many techniques you can use to reduce theft and coping of your images.
A transparent gif placed on top of the image causes anyone doing a "right click and save" technique to save the transparent gif. It will leave most baffled. :confused:
A server side java program can be used to display the image, thus hiding the location of the image from those who would read the source code.
Most servers have options where you can prevent other web pages from linking to your images to display them on their own site.
Splitting the image up into smaller images that are then pieced together to display the image as a whole on the page is another deterrent.
Watermarking the image of course helps.
Would love to hear more tricks to help reduce image theft since we all agree it can not be prevented 100%. :(
As already mentioned, there is no fool-proof way to do this, but there are many techniques you can use to reduce theft and coping of your images.
A transparent gif placed on top of the image causes anyone doing a "right click and save" technique to save the transparent gif. It will leave most baffled. :confused:
A server side java program can be used to display the image, thus hiding the location of the image from those who would read the source code.
Most servers have options where you can prevent other web pages from linking to your images to display them on their own site.
Splitting the image up into smaller images that are then pieced together to display the image as a whole on the page is another deterrent.
Watermarking the image of course helps.
Would love to hear more tricks to help reduce image theft since we all agree it can not be prevented 100%. :(
LiLcRaZyFuZzY
11-16-2005, 12:31 PM
Deal!
;) :cool:
;) :cool:
LocalHero
11-16-2005, 02:31 PM
The most basic idea (I think) is just to disable the right-click on the page. I make graphic samples and when I show them to people, I don't want them to steal images without paying first. So when they right-click I have javascript that alerts "This image is not ready for you yet". I think most internet goers are unaware about how to use the "print screen". If it's easy to incorporate into your site, I like the transparent gif idea that was mentioned too.
felgall
11-16-2005, 03:15 PM
Disabling right click is the absolute worst thing you can do. It will drive away legitimate visitors and encourage the thieves to take your images just because they can.
Instead of disabling right click why not put your images behind a transparent image instead (my code generator for this can be found at http://javascript.about.com/library/blimgprot.htm ). Anyone who right clicks ends up saving the transparent image and not the one they wanted and may not realise they have the wrong image until later - at which point they may decide it is not worth returning to steal the real images a different way.
Watermarking the images with your domain name is the most effective way to protect your images. It doesn't stop people taking them but it makes proving that they were stolen from you easier as well as advertising your site if someone does post them elsewhere.
Instead of disabling right click why not put your images behind a transparent image instead (my code generator for this can be found at http://javascript.about.com/library/blimgprot.htm ). Anyone who right clicks ends up saving the transparent image and not the one they wanted and may not realise they have the wrong image until later - at which point they may decide it is not worth returning to steal the real images a different way.
Watermarking the images with your domain name is the most effective way to protect your images. It doesn't stop people taking them but it makes proving that they were stolen from you easier as well as advertising your site if someone does post them elsewhere.
LocalHero
11-16-2005, 03:48 PM
Disabling right click is the absolute worst thing you can do. It will drive away legitimate visitors and encourage the thieves to take your images just because they can.
Please... you shouldn't even be allowed to link to such garbage. If these internet pirates that sail the web in search of image treasure, then they will look at the source code. As I stated, a kind alert or simply nothing will easily deter an average user.
While I did agree that the transparent gif was a good idea, saying that disabling right click is the absolute worst thing you can do is moronic. By your logic, when someone downloads a blank picture they will be frusterated and:
It will drive away legitimate visitors and encourage the thieves to take your images just because they can. :D
Please... you shouldn't even be allowed to link to such garbage. If these internet pirates that sail the web in search of image treasure, then they will look at the source code. As I stated, a kind alert or simply nothing will easily deter an average user.
While I did agree that the transparent gif was a good idea, saying that disabling right click is the absolute worst thing you can do is moronic. By your logic, when someone downloads a blank picture they will be frusterated and:
It will drive away legitimate visitors and encourage the thieves to take your images just because they can. :D
JAPerson
11-17-2005, 01:14 AM
Disabling right click is the absolute worst thing you can do. It will drive away legitimate visitors
Why would it do that? I don't see where the right click menu is that important of a need that it would chase people away. If it chased anyone away, it would be those trying to download and save the images. And that would be fine by us. :D
Why would it do that? I don't see where the right click menu is that important of a need that it would chase people away. If it chased anyone away, it would be those trying to download and save the images. And that would be fine by us. :D
Triumph
11-17-2005, 10:20 AM
Messing with someone's settings and browser behavior is pretentious. Don't disable features or make a new window open or resize my window.
I'd like to see these pictures that are worth so much that having John Q. Public download them is a big deal.
I'd like to see these pictures that are worth so much that having John Q. Public download them is a big deal.
felgall
11-17-2005, 02:19 PM
Lots of people prefer to turn off the menu and toolbar at the top of their browser to get more screen space for the web page. They then use the right click menu to gain access to the navigation options.
ajimenez
11-17-2005, 04:42 PM
It seems like this question always comes up again and again. Can't this be made into a sticky for this forum?
zee644
11-18-2005, 11:45 AM
wow the guy who said placing a transparent gif overtop is so smart!! seriously I never would have thought of that, yet it seems so simple!
slicing up an image is good too though
slicing up an image is good too though
LiLcRaZyFuZzY
11-18-2005, 11:56 AM
sure..so smart
JAPerson
11-18-2005, 12:35 PM
wow the guy who said placing a transparent gif overtop is so smart!!
ROFLMBO!!! Maybe if you read some of my other posts, you'd change your mind. :D
Besides, that idea wasn't mine. I figured it out from another site when I tried to save the graphics from it and all I got were transparent gif's. Saddly, their source code gave me the url of the images I was trying to get.
ROFLMBO!!! Maybe if you read some of my other posts, you'd change your mind. :D
Besides, that idea wasn't mine. I figured it out from another site when I tried to save the graphics from it and all I got were transparent gif's. Saddly, their source code gave me the url of the images I was trying to get.
abbymorgan
11-20-2005, 09:23 AM
I don't see where the right click menu is that important of a need that it would chase people away. If it chased anyone away, it would be those trying to download and save the images.
As an artist I certainly understand this topic. But I have left sites and swore never to go back because I could not right-click and use "Open Link in New Window". I like having control over my experience. Taking away functionality is annoying.
On a graphics intensive site this can be even more annoying for people with slower connections. If someone just wants to look at an image or two, but keep the main page open, they should be able to. Having to wait for the main page to reload when you click the back button is stupid.
The bottom line is that without using Java or Flash or something similar, someone can always save your image, by saving the page or looking in the temporary internet files. And anyone who knows enough to do that, probably knows how to do a screen cap too. So why take away browser functionality?
Just my thoughts,
Abby
As an artist I certainly understand this topic. But I have left sites and swore never to go back because I could not right-click and use "Open Link in New Window". I like having control over my experience. Taking away functionality is annoying.
On a graphics intensive site this can be even more annoying for people with slower connections. If someone just wants to look at an image or two, but keep the main page open, they should be able to. Having to wait for the main page to reload when you click the back button is stupid.
The bottom line is that without using Java or Flash or something similar, someone can always save your image, by saving the page or looking in the temporary internet files. And anyone who knows enough to do that, probably knows how to do a screen cap too. So why take away browser functionality?
Just my thoughts,
Abby
LocalHero
11-20-2005, 12:47 PM
In my opinion ( I could be wrong ), websites that are displaying images possibly for sale are not catering to programmers or developers. It is more likely that the average "Joe Blow" internet user will be on their site. The average user hits the "print screen" on their keyboard and then looks at their printer in confusion.
The average user doesn't know if their looking at flash, PHP, or HTML. It's probably a toss-up if they actually open pages in a new window.
When I design websites of this nature, I design them to guide the 80% (guess) of the users that need you to hold their hand to get what they need because they don’t know what’s happening in the source code. I imagine someone who has never used the internet before and make it easy for them. If this is a big enough problem (stealing pictures), then I would rather keep large percentage of average users and turn away a few disgruntled programmers.
Adding an "Open Link in New Window" JS button would be a good solution, although the site builder is the one who must add that. As I have posted before, using a transparent gif is a pretty good idea, but there may be situations where it is difficult to implement with the site’s layout. Disabling the right-click is an easy alternative. Adding a few JS features to cover some of the missed mouse options is also a good idea, but up to the programmer.
You cannot keep your images safe for 100% of the users. Any 13 year old kid can remove a watermark in Photoshop. Any programmer can find the source code and download your image. And many people can copy their screen to a clipboard and get the image. There are many tricks to stop the majority of the users, but I agree that it should only stop the stealing of the image and not the functionality of the rest of the page.
The average user doesn't know if their looking at flash, PHP, or HTML. It's probably a toss-up if they actually open pages in a new window.
When I design websites of this nature, I design them to guide the 80% (guess) of the users that need you to hold their hand to get what they need because they don’t know what’s happening in the source code. I imagine someone who has never used the internet before and make it easy for them. If this is a big enough problem (stealing pictures), then I would rather keep large percentage of average users and turn away a few disgruntled programmers.
Adding an "Open Link in New Window" JS button would be a good solution, although the site builder is the one who must add that. As I have posted before, using a transparent gif is a pretty good idea, but there may be situations where it is difficult to implement with the site’s layout. Disabling the right-click is an easy alternative. Adding a few JS features to cover some of the missed mouse options is also a good idea, but up to the programmer.
You cannot keep your images safe for 100% of the users. Any 13 year old kid can remove a watermark in Photoshop. Any programmer can find the source code and download your image. And many people can copy their screen to a clipboard and get the image. There are many tricks to stop the majority of the users, but I agree that it should only stop the stealing of the image and not the functionality of the rest of the page.
felgall
11-20-2005, 02:26 PM
The one advantage of the transparent image overlay is that it stops the images being saved via the right click menu without blocking the other functionality of that menu. That makes it a better alternative than blocking the menu. It also works on all browsers where blocking the menu doesn't. Doesn't stop people taking the images some other way though.
The best solution is to watermark the image with the domain name of the site. Even if someone does manipulate the image to try to remove the watermark they will still not be able to restore the original perfectly and you will have all of the evidence that you need to be able to prove that the image was stolen.
The best solution is to watermark the image with the domain name of the site. Even if someone does manipulate the image to try to remove the watermark they will still not be able to restore the original perfectly and you will have all of the evidence that you need to be able to prove that the image was stolen.
bokeh
11-20-2005, 07:36 PM
No normal web resolution image would be high enough resolution for any serious individual to consider stealing.
felgall
11-21-2005, 02:44 PM
No normal web resolution image would be high enough resolution for any serious individual to consider stealing.
The sort of people who try to block people from stealing their images are the same people who don't know that they need to optimize their images for the web. Their pages end up taking so long to load no one ends up seeing the images anyway.
The sort of people who try to block people from stealing their images are the same people who don't know that they need to optimize their images for the web. Their pages end up taking so long to load no one ends up seeing the images anyway.
Sheldon
11-21-2005, 06:32 PM
I sometimes like to set my images with CSS in an external file, with the z-index behind another layer, makes it hard to get, unless you think hard about it and are trying to steal my css as well.
No image in the source code, can still right click(which i HATE it when you cant) but you can select thte image.
I agree with Bokeh and Fegall, No decent website will have image quality worth stealing because you should optomise every image you use for the web, The only sites where this might not be the case are sites where users can upload their own images.
I also think in those cases that embedding a watermark is a great idea when users upload images, Im in the process of trying to write that into my image upload/resize script now, so if anyone has any tips please post :)
No image in the source code, can still right click(which i HATE it when you cant) but you can select thte image.
I agree with Bokeh and Fegall, No decent website will have image quality worth stealing because you should optomise every image you use for the web, The only sites where this might not be the case are sites where users can upload their own images.
I also think in those cases that embedding a watermark is a great idea when users upload images, Im in the process of trying to write that into my image upload/resize script now, so if anyone has any tips please post :)
acorbelli
11-21-2005, 07:52 PM
Any design which disables the basic functionality of the browser is not a design at all. It's like having a store but telling people they can't use their legs if they enter, and I find it equally as frustrating.
With this in mind, if you are selling images then apply a watermark, and then turn down the res so low that it is not beneficial at all for them to steal the image. Otherwise, don't put them online because there is no way to protect it.
With this in mind, if you are selling images then apply a watermark, and then turn down the res so low that it is not beneficial at all for them to steal the image. Otherwise, don't put them online because there is no way to protect it.
thewebman
11-21-2005, 08:29 PM
this question is so stupid... TONS of other people have asked the same thing, do a little research! Google it. do anything but ask this question again! and LiLcRaZyFuZzY, you guys got a deal. I'll cremate the dead frog.
Robert Wellock
11-24-2005, 11:43 AM
I want the dead frog sacrificing to the Dark God of XHTML so that its soul many wander cyberspace unto the ends of infinity and repent (for something).
Sir Jake
11-29-2005, 07:03 PM
Water marking with transparent gif and a disabled right click and blah blah blah....
The reality is, if it's on the web it's public. That's what it boils down to.
All you can do is copyright your website content, ( as a 'copyright compliation' the same way they do in the music industry for CDs to cover all the songs and pics ) Then hope someone steals it and makes a million dollars with it and then you can sue them and go on a long vacation...yaaaaay!
Why not put text stating others may take your stuff for personal use only? It'll make you look nice and they'll do it anywho if they want, (and you'll never even know).
The reality is, if it's on the web it's public. That's what it boils down to.
All you can do is copyright your website content, ( as a 'copyright compliation' the same way they do in the music industry for CDs to cover all the songs and pics ) Then hope someone steals it and makes a million dollars with it and then you can sue them and go on a long vacation...yaaaaay!
Why not put text stating others may take your stuff for personal use only? It'll make you look nice and they'll do it anywho if they want, (and you'll never even know).
bokeh
11-29-2005, 07:44 PM
blah blah blah....Watermarking is a deterant, especially when some checky rascal is not only using some of your images but also getting your server to serve them up
Sir Jake
11-29-2005, 08:38 PM
bokeh, yes if some one is taking your images right from your server watermarking is a good deterant unless they don't mind your site URL on the image. Then it's free advertizing....that's cool.
But like someone suggested watermarking can be eleminated quite easily even in ms paint, the most basic pic editor ever.
But like someone suggested watermarking can be eleminated quite easily even in ms paint, the most basic pic editor ever.
dera
11-30-2005, 03:16 AM
basically any image/flash object if its visibile can be seen then its always going to be able to be copied, if you are worried put a watermark on the image.
felgall
11-30-2005, 04:08 PM
Removing a watermark requires more effort for the thief than any of the other methods that can be used to "protect" images since it is the only one where the thief has to spend more than 2 seconds per page of images.
Brollachan
12-01-2005, 05:13 AM
Quick related query...
If the images are mainly of screen captures from TV programmes and you wanted to put a watermark on the images, then what is the best wording on the sites' copyright page as technically the images aren't your own I think.
In this case would a line simlar to...
"The watermark used on some imagery does not necessarily represent ownership of the images, but is has been added to in an attempt prevent imagery theft from this site"
...be enough/required to keep an TV company lawyers happy just incase they didn't like screen captures being used with a websites' watermark on.
If the images are mainly of screen captures from TV programmes and you wanted to put a watermark on the images, then what is the best wording on the sites' copyright page as technically the images aren't your own I think.
In this case would a line simlar to...
"The watermark used on some imagery does not necessarily represent ownership of the images, but is has been added to in an attempt prevent imagery theft from this site"
...be enough/required to keep an TV company lawyers happy just incase they didn't like screen captures being used with a websites' watermark on.
bokeh
12-01-2005, 05:26 AM
Quick related query...That a question you should direct at a copyright lawyer not a bunch of web developers who may not even be in your country.
thewebman
12-01-2005, 02:22 PM
bokeh is right, get a lawyer. we're just web developers. I personally don't think you'd have to add that text, if the image has a watermark, people will understand that they're not supposed to steal it.
felgall
12-01-2005, 03:32 PM
When you obtain the permission to display the screenshots from their copyright holder they should be able to tell you what copyright notice they require you to use.
Sir Jake
12-01-2005, 05:52 PM
Brollachan, very good question. felgall, very good answer.
In my experience I have almost never been disappointed when I write a company and ask promission to use their elements. They are usually pleased that you take an interest and this makes sense since you're offering free advertizing really. The only time I've received a "NO" is from a very small company, ( no doubt a 'single person' that simply isn't that business savy or doesn't realize what exposure can do for them). I respect their "NO" and it's their loss.
In your letter don't forget to give them direct links so they know what they are agreeing to.
All you need to do then is keep a copy of your request and their consent reply.
In my experience I have almost never been disappointed when I write a company and ask promission to use their elements. They are usually pleased that you take an interest and this makes sense since you're offering free advertizing really. The only time I've received a "NO" is from a very small company, ( no doubt a 'single person' that simply isn't that business savy or doesn't realize what exposure can do for them). I respect their "NO" and it's their loss.
In your letter don't forget to give them direct links so they know what they are agreeing to.
All you need to do then is keep a copy of your request and their consent reply.
Brollachan
12-02-2005, 04:37 AM
Thanks for the replies.
Basically the reason why I was asking is that I'm tidying up a website for someone. The site in question regularly gets its images taken and used in ebay auctions (which are illegal anyway), and was therefore considering using watermarks. I have also noticed the absense of any copyright notice of sorts, so I think I'll need to make a few enquries.
Interestingly there is in UK law a somewhat grey area labelled fair use...
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
* The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
* That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
* That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
From: http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use&e=10384
I had also noticed ebay sellers attempting to hotlink to images from that site. On .htaccess script later and the problem was sorted, and now those auctions are getting an image they weren't expecting which clearly states that they are attempting to hotlink. I know a replacement pic still drains the bandwidth slightly at 7Kb, but there is some amusement gained from seeing the user being publically shown up. Also a replacement pic appear might hopefully deter others from hotlinking.
Basically the reason why I was asking is that I'm tidying up a website for someone. The site in question regularly gets its images taken and used in ebay auctions (which are illegal anyway), and was therefore considering using watermarks. I have also noticed the absense of any copyright notice of sorts, so I think I'll need to make a few enquries.
Interestingly there is in UK law a somewhat grey area labelled fair use...
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
* The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
* That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
* That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
From: http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use&e=10384
I had also noticed ebay sellers attempting to hotlink to images from that site. On .htaccess script later and the problem was sorted, and now those auctions are getting an image they weren't expecting which clearly states that they are attempting to hotlink. I know a replacement pic still drains the bandwidth slightly at 7Kb, but there is some amusement gained from seeing the user being publically shown up. Also a replacement pic appear might hopefully deter others from hotlinking.
bokeh
12-02-2005, 04:51 AM
On .htaccess script later and the problem was sorted, and now those auctions are getting an image they weren't expecting.I know this is off topic but could you show us what you have used in .htaccess.
Brollachan
12-02-2005, 06:41 AM
(See: http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84175 )
Though the following url isn't listed in that topic I found the following topic useful...
http://altlab.com/htaccess_tutorial.html
Though the following url isn't listed in that topic I found the following topic useful...
http://altlab.com/htaccess_tutorial.html
dera
12-02-2005, 07:15 AM
your main concern here should be bandwidth not whos copying who, by law in Australia and it might be similar internationally, after you write, take a photo etc. it is yours and you are the copyright holder, there is no need to register it as a copyright. If any body is copying your image take legal action, you can't find them tell there service provide, find out who they are from their domain whois, etc. Bandwidth and hotlinking can be prevented by making htaccess allow only referring from your site only.
webdeveloper.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.