Is it worth disabling right click??

I already have added a bit of script to disable right click on EZ pages and general info pages but when a user clicks on a product then chooses to look at the larger image they can right click, how do i stop them from right clicking on the larger image in the pop up box??

Or is it even woth it and better to watermark images. The reason i want to stop people from nicking the images is that the products are unique spiritual paintings that are unique to the individual and my client doesnt want them copied, understandable.

MY dilema is, is it worth disabling right click since there seems to be so many ways around it, i've read on this forum anyway, and can i do a global disable right click if it is worth it??

Rather than preventing right click I would suggest you add a visible watermark to the images on the site.

Even if you manage to prevent the right-click IE users can just click on VIEW on the IE menu and select "view source". This does the same as right click/view source. Anyone hardup enough to want to steal images will use this method to find your image directory and download it directly from there.

I actually feel that the No-right click feature is more of a deterent than it is anything else. I've met more average computer-literate people who know about saving an image by right clicking than I have ever known who understand about getting around it by using the IE browser>view>source.

Speaking of which, I just added a no-right click script to the define pages editor - to help deter the no-right clickers who visit the image gallery and main page, but I was wondering if anyone knows how to disable the MS image toolbar. I have been to some sites where the developers manage to disable both the right click feature and the ms image toolbar together. Without having to add a metatag for ms image toolbar??

Ideally for some of the gallery images on the homepage I'd like to implement some macromedia - that really helps with the whole process of keeping images from copycats - or does it?

See this thread

http://www.zen-cart.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40338

Remember guys this no right click ONLY works for IE

firefox leaves it open,
also IE now has these kool developers toolbars that allow you to do all sorts of things,

Is it worth disabling right-click? The answer is 'No'. It's so easy to beat - just reload the page and right-click before the page fully loads and you'll get the image.

Is it worth preventing bandwidth theft by protecting your images against 'hotlinking'? The answer is 'Yes'. 'Hotlinking is what happens when someone puts a link to an image on your website into their website - so that their website loads the image as a download from yours - thus stealing your bandwidth. Hotlinking protection can be provided by the use of .htaccess.

Vger

remember that if you do add hotlinking to htaccess,
remember to add both your non secure and secure URLS to the command

Vger:

Is it worth disabling right-click? The answer is 'No'. It's so easy to beat - just reload the page and right-click before the page fully loads and you'll get the image.

Is it worth preventing bandwidth theft by protecting your images against 'hotlinking'? The answer is 'Yes'. 'Hotlinking is what happens when someone puts a link to an image on your website into their website - so that their website loads the image as a download from yours - thus stealing your bandwidth. Hotlinking protection can be provided by the use of .htaccess.

Vger

I think I am missing something from the two previous posts - maybe I am doing something wrong in trying to figure out how this even happens, but....

I've just included a no-right click script, and both my IE and firefox browsers work using this script - ie... they prevent me from right-clicking (I used a no-right click java script that comes without those irritating pop-up windows "No image theft allowed! Have a nice day" - maybe that helps...donno)

In comment to Vgar's earlier post, " It's so easy to beat - just reload the page and right-click before the page fully loads and you'll get the image." - How do you do that - after I implemented the no-right click script, I find it impossible to reload the page and right-click over an image or anything on the page.

I am also curious about your comments regarding hotlinking. I know what hotlinking is (fortunately), but I don't really understand what the .htaccess is and how that protects other people from hotlinking the image.

I've noticed looking through my website statistic reports, that there is a huge jump in visits and/or bandwidth usage from this one myspace.com site - unfortunately I am unable to assertain what the exact address is to find out for myself why all these visitors are coming, or downloading the images. Would anyone know how to extract from statistic reports where the exact website location is?

TIA

Try looking in your activity log to see who is downloading particular images. If you then have their ip address you can block that ip address from accessing your site at all using a .htaccess file in the root of your web. .htaccess only works on Apache servers - not on Windows servers.

Google for 'preventing hotlinking using .htaccess' and you'll come up with plenty of useful links that explain .htaccess to you in detail - some even provide code generating facilities that will produce the .htaccess code for you.

Vger

It doesn't matter what you do, your images can always be copied if they display! PrtScr - that's all you need. The only way to make it not worth the effort is to watermark the image in a manner that makes it too time consuming to photoshop out!

Disabling right-click is not the real issue. Images saved to someone's computer for use somewhere else may be annoying - but at least they are not using your bandwidth. If they are hotlinking your images to their website then they are stealing your bandwidth and costing you money.

Vger

Remember guys this no right click ONLY works for IE

firefox leaves it open,
also IE now has these kool developers toolbars that allow you to do all sorts of things,

This is totally incorrect. Right-click can be disabled both ways with Javascript codings and has been proven by seeking over Google by finding the right codes. In fact, I have posted the code on another topic, from this section, which does quite the trick. :wink2:

Disabling right-click is not the real issue. Images saved to someone's computer for use somewhere else may be annoying - but at least they are not using your bandwidth. If they are hotlinking your images to their website then they are stealing your bandwidth and costing you money.

Yes, that's the real point of right-click issues. :smile:

I've had fun with hotlinking some time ago. I just stopped using the image for the product which image was hotlinked, and replaced it by an advertisement. So the hotlinking sites were advertising for me after that, by hotlinking the image. And I think it was worth the bandwith it costed ;-)

Back on topic: disabling right click annoys al lot of customers, and does not really protect anything. So, as said earlier in this thread, watermarking probably is the best option to protect images..

paulm:

Back on topic: disabling right click annoys al lot of customers, and does not really protect anything. So, as said earlier in this thread, watermarking probably is the best option to protect images..

Nothing protects anything if someone knows how to get around it. A lot of average computer literate people don't seem to know how to get around the no-right click feature. And there are graphic artists out there who can "cut away" at more subtle watermarks. You would literally have to put a giant watermark on a very conspicuous part of the image to avoid this.

Having been an online customer myself, the thing that irritates me most about the no-right click feature is a) the little pop-up box "This picture is copyrighted" that you aren't expecting, and
b) Not being able to make a shortcut of the product page to my desktop - especially when I am interested in purchasing an item and would like to do some comparative price shopping before I commit.

However, I have recently implemented a no-right click script myself, one that doesn't create a pop-up box. Coming from the opposite end of the perspective - that of tending to a web business - and witnessing the problems arising from images readily available, I also understand the need to take precautions. It seems to be the current trend of some major brands and websites, especially when you visit more and more that are incorporating flash to non-moving graphics. That also removes the right-click feature to images.

Personally, I do not like the affect that an image has after it has been watermarked. A major part of selling a 2 dimensional item on screen is presentation. For my particular product image, I don't feel the presentation of having a conspicuous watermark works for me, however, every one and every product is different. What may work for one marketing segment will not work for another…and visa versa.

Because of my situation and personal feelings, I do think people need options. If watermarking works for some - then use it. If incorporating a no-right click script helps deter the problem - use it.

But there has to be other options out there – maybe flash will also become the norm for small online business people to protect their images?

maybe flash will also become the norm for small online business people to protect their images

Oh God, I hope not. If there's anything more user-unfriendly than Flash then please let me know so that I can avoid it too.

We use it for Tutorials, but personally I'd never think of using it in a commercial website.

Vger

I would like to know why one would want the "average-literate" person from copying an image to his computer. I can see the reason for preventing hotlinking, but preventing copying is another issue. I don't think that this violates any copyright laws in itself, since that would seem to require the "publishing" of such images. The average user is more likely to take an image for wallpaper use or whatnot. If you want to prevent the republication of images (for instance, by a competitor) you are going to need to do much more than disabling right click.

And remember, images are stored in the person's temp folder anyway so they are accessible there. In the end, I think that it's six of one, half dozen of the other (or however it goes!). :sleep:

"If there's anything more user-unfriendly than Flash then please let me know so that I can avoid it too."...LOL!

Okay :)

Phid:

I would like to know why one would want the "average-literate" person from copying an image to his computer. I can see the reason for preventing hotlinking, but preventing copying is another issue. I don't think that this violates any copyright laws in itself, since that would seem to require the "publishing" of such images. The average user is more likely to take an image for wallpaper use or whatnot. If you want to prevent the republication of images (for instance, by a competitor) you are going to need to do much more than disabling right click.

And remember, images are stored in the person's temp folder anyway so they are accessible there. In the end, I think that it's six of one, half dozen of the other (or however it goes!). :sleep:

Your argument is one I have used extensively myself for the past 2 years, I always figured that the average computer-literate individual couldn't do much harm with saving the image for their own personal use etc... and for the most part I don't think the majority does, however, I've bumped into a few exceptions to that rule. You are absolutely right, there are competitors who will stop at nothing to get an image to duplicate for their own use - there's even ways around getting an image off a site embedded with flash.

But there are also some average computer literate, who do become competitors of a product idea... why make it easy on them - if they really want to take the picture, let 'em work for it and make them do it the hard way, if they can even figure it out.

I am not suggesting that the no-right click script is by any means the answer, that assumption would be pure folly - adding car alarms don't stop seasoned intruders, but it does make it that bit harder for the not-so-well-experienced. It's far from fail-proof, but hey, if people can put enough effort into their cars and tangible property why the heck not their livelihood?