disable copy paste

[oldwetdog]

One simpler solution may be to just alter the images. I have taken images on
some of my sites that have been prone to people deciding to copy and
converted them to a transparent background and set the background to the
desired color. If the image is saved, it really doesn't look all that good.
I figure if a person really, really wants the image, they'll have to learn

Interesting idea. Which will delay someone with the GIMP/Photoshop7 (and
knows how to use it) maybe 30 seconds. What they will do is notice that
one color is missing (and they are have not left your page yet) so they
copy your html and css code to find the missing color, open the graphic
program, insert the missing color into the background, create a layer
over the background, then merge the two layers. 30 seconds, tops.

My question is, why bother?
OK, if you are displaying a photograph which is copyright and you want
to sell, that is one thing, which the above does not solve. People who
resort to stealing (what ever their internal logic) copyright pictures
for their own use are not likely to buy any picture anyway.

The other thing is, how long is a picture good for? It seems like most
pages change like dirty socks, so a picture which is not a source of
income for you will be gone in what, 180 days?

how to use a graphics editor. If they are able to use a graphics program
well enough to restore the hijacked pics, they're probably good enough to
have created their own. So, using that logic, they'd probably not be out
looking for someone else's work to steal.

Chuck

Some people steal for no other reason than doing so pleases them.
Actually, if you try to protect something, like a picture, it is just a
challenge to them.

Sorry I have no solution to offer.

oldwetdog

 

[oldwetdog]

in post <oldwetdog said:





in internet time 2 years is a very long time. the oldest of the other
"big three" is a little less than 6 months old (NS7.1) and is already
out of date.




old people smell funny




http://balls.bruciesusenetshit.info/

Thanks brucie

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt wrote

One simpler solution may be to just alter the images. I have taken
images on some of my sites that have been prone to people deciding to
copy and converted them to a transparent background and set the
background to the desired color. If the image is saved, it really
doesn't look all that good.

Great idea. Like oldwetdog just said, not effective for everyone but
probably good enough in most cases.

I figure if a person really, really wants
the image, they'll have to learn how to use a graphics editor. If
they are able to use a graphics program well enough to restore the
hijacked pics, they're probably good enough to have created their
own. So, using that logic, they'd probably not be out looking for
someone else's work to steal.

I'm not so sure about that Making a color correction in a picture is a
lot easier than creating a picture from scratch or making a good photo.
Nico

 

[Nico Schuyt]

My question is, why bother?

That's a more fundamental discussion. Maybe it's even a compliment if
someone steals your pictures. (And you'll probably never find out if someone
does)
Nico

 

[Barry Pearson]

oldwetdog wrote:
[snip]

My question is, why bother?
OK, if you are displaying a photograph which is copyright and you want
to sell, that is one thing, which the above does not solve. People who
resort to stealing (what ever their internal logic) copyright pictures
for their own use are not likely to buy any picture anyway.

[snip]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

I recently sold a picture to a (very reputable) magazine that found it on the
web. The web version they found was 700 x 493 pixels, but it was no good to
them. What they bought was the pre-resampling version, 3750 x 2646 pixels.
They probably wanted about 3000 x 2100 in practice.

The web version led to their request, but it was no use for their purpose.

 

[Whitecrest]

I took it but I bet a lot of others just left.

As they should have. If they don't like the site, or how they present
the content, then by all means, they should leave the site and find one
that offers the content in a manner they want to see it.

The only way to send a signal to a site that they are presenting their
content in a manner the visitors don't like, or can't use, is to leave.

They will either accept the loss of your bushiness, or they will change.
Of course, this works both ways. Sometimes visitors WANT to see all
that extra stuff and will leave if you don't have it.

Which way is right depends on the site.

 

[Whitecrest]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

Excellent point. An image that is worth anything is not a 50K jpg at
300dpi (yea, yea, yea, there are probably a few exceptions)

 

[rf]

Excellent point. An image that is worth anything is not a 50K jpg at
300dpi (yea, yea, yea, there are probably a few exceptions)

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg (38193 bytes)

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Barry Pearson]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg (38193 bytes)

I love it!

But at 300ppi, which some magazines ask for (perhaps overkill), that
photograph is about 1.7 inches by about 1.2 inches. They tend not to pay much
for that.

 

[Whitecrest]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg (38193 bytes)

One of the exceptions...

 

[Nico Schuyt]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

Depends on what you do with it. Web sized photographs are excellent for
websites
Nico

 

[Wipkip]

While sitting in a puddle Barry Pearson scribbled in the mud:

[snip]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

They work ok in PP

 

[oldwetdog]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/roo.jpg (38193 bytes)

Cheers
Richard.

LOL... So, tell me, did the Roo tell ya what it was considering?

 

[Barry Pearson]

Depends on what you do with it. Web sized photographs are excellent
for websites

Chuckle! I would never have guessed!

But how much are they worth, given the risk of detection? Do people actually
copy photographs for this purpose? (Hm! I was disconcerted once to find one of
my web sites listed on a web site as source of free photographs!)

And would you even need to copy them? Couldn't you simply link to them?

 

[Barry Pearson]

While sitting in a puddle Barry Pearson scribbled in the mud:
[snip]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

They work ok in PP

"PP"? Are you talking about a photographic magazine, such as Practical
Photographer?

Those are not web sized photographs in terms of pixels. On the web, a
photograph may be (say) 600 x 400 pixels. That might be enough for a
photograph about 2 inches or a bit more wide in a photographic magazine.
Magazines typically need far more pixels than that.

 

[PeterMcC]

While sitting in a puddle Barry Pearson scribbled in the mud:
[snip]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are they?

They work ok in PP

"PP"? Are you talking about a photographic magazine, such as Practical
Photographer?

At a guess - PowerPoint ?

 

[Barry Pearson]

While sitting in a puddle Barry Pearson scribbled in the mud:
[snip]

I don't think web-sized photographs are worth much anyway, are
they?

They work ok in PP

"PP"? Are you talking about a photographic magazine, such as
Practical Photographer?

At a guess - PowerPoint ?

Aaaaaarrrrggh! (I use it a lot, and it never entered my mind).

 

[brucie]

Aaaaaarrrrggh! (I use it a lot, and it never entered my mind).

perhaps because powerpoint makes you stupid. (i'm amazed its taken so
long for people to come to that realization, probably because they're
all stupid)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/m...00&en=799ad449b398c2d7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[Nico Schuyt]

But how much are they worth, given the risk of detection? Do people
actually copy photographs for this purpose?

I can hardly imagine a professional photographer would do such things. Not
because the risc of detection (chances are minimal) but because somenone
might want to buy the full sized picture. (Some pictures in ng concerning
photography however are very large)
But everybody else who wants a nice picture might steal it.

(Hm! I was disconcerted
once to find one of my web sites listed on a web site as source of
free photographs!)

LOL. But maybe it's a compliment for the quality of your photographs

And would you even need to copy them? Couldn't you simply link to
them?

A bit tricky (the source file can be changed or removed) and easier to
detect.
Cheers, Nico

 

[Onson]

Excellent point. An image that is worth anything is not a 50K jpg at
300dpi (yea, yea, yea, there are probably a few exceptions)

JPGs are never used for serious imaging anyhow.

Very few internet picture thieves are thiefs of the kind who would tunnel
into a bank. They're more of the kind who, when seeing a bag of money laying
in the street, will look both ways then grab it and stick it under their
coats.

That includes the vast majority of people, I'm reasonably sure. The one who
shows up at the police station with the money, and the one that won't cop a
picture from the internet for ethical reasons, are very rare souls.

I find I'm only one of them sometimes. I.e., I've given money mistakenly
given to me at a bank's drive-up window back to the teller, and I've kept
money that was mistakenly given to me when I didn't discover the error until
later. Right now I'm thinking that if I found a bag of money in the street
I'd likely keep it. Maybe the wife's Xmas spending has something to do with
that. Then again, one never really knows what they'd do until the temptation
is at hand.

One thing is for sure. I would never leave anything of real value laying
about the internet anymore than I'd let a bag of money lay on the street.
You'd have to be pretty stupid not to know someone is going to hike both.