Hi everyone,
I have a site for a client who is showing a portfolio. She wants to disable the viewer's ability to right-click and save, print, etc., any of the photos on her site. Any ideas how to accomplish this? I do see some third-party software on the 'net, is that the way to go and any recommendations? She didn't mention it but I'd also like to prevent doing a print-screen copy to clipboard.

Thanks in advance, this forum ROCKS!

You can slow them but can't stop them completely. The very nature of the internet is that it's public to everyone.

You can slow them but can't stop them completely. The very nature of the internet is that it's public to everyone.

good point. so...any ideas on how to slow 'em down?

She wants to disable the viewer's ability to right-click and save, print, etc.Right-Click: can only be disabled in Internet Explorer. To my knowledge, Firefox ignores all disabling scripts, and I'm certain Opera does. It doesn't matter - most people steal by using print screen or software like Hypersnap.

Save: Same as right-click, and you can get past this in IE as well.

Print: Cannot be done.

I'd also like to prevent doing a print-screen copy to clipboard.Can't be done.

Explain to your client that the Internet isn't actually viewed online. Every individual computer downloads all of the components seen on the screen, and then displays them from a local (temp) folder. As such, every single picture and piece of text is automatically downloaded onto everyone's PCs the minute they view it. If someone wants to access the pictures, they can, and there's nothing you can do about it, because they are already resident on that person's computer!

The best you can do is watermark. If you don't mind playing a little cat'n'mouse, you can use something like Digimark, and you can track down unauthorized uses of your images.

Bottom line: if you don't want it downloaded, don't post it on the Internet. This is the best piece of advice your client can receive, and it will save you a lot of money you would otherwise waste on trying to prevent something that cannot be prevented.

That is such a bummer.....

Not to beleaguer the point but what about this software....
http://www.share2s.com/protect.html#web-site-encrypt

Just want to try to examine all options....thanks in advance :)

Dynamic Drive has a few that can slow them down.

See them here (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/index.html)

Dynamic Drive has a few that can slow them down.

See them here (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/index.html)

That's awesome.....thank you so much, I do understand you can't prevent this stuff but my client just needs to feel as if we're doing something to try to protect her.

Thanks again for all replies and feedback, this is a great resource for me.
:agree:

That is such a bummer.....

Not to beleaguer the point but what about this software....
http://www.share2s.com/protect.html#web-site-encrypt

Just want to try to examine all options....thanks in advance :)First of all, every security measure in place on that screen failed for me, and I'm using my browser's default setup!

Second, the JavaScript encoding means:
1. People with JS disabled/unavailable will get a blank page. This includes people using corporate PCs where corporate IT has locked down functionality for safety reasons and public access points that have done the same (Internet cafes, libraries, etc.).
2. People using mobile browsers (PDAs, cell phones, tablet PCs, etc.) may get nothing. This is a rising market, mostly made up of statistically above average wage earners and spenders.
3. These pages will compromise the ability for search engines to derive anything meaningful from them.
4. The encoding didn't stop me from selecting everything on the screen and copying it.

Not to beleaguer the point...This is the best piece of advice your client can receive, and it will save you a lot of money you would otherwise waste on trying to prevent something that cannot be prevented....but this software would be a monumental waste of money, and if it is free, it would still be a monumental waste of time. ;)

That's awesome.....thank you so much, I do understand you can't prevent this stuff but my client just needs to feel as if we're doing something to try to protect her.Giving your client a false sense of security is not protecting her. Educating her about how the Internet works and helping her make good decisions regarding what she puts online protects her.

Do your client a favor and bypass useless Web tricks like the ones on dynamic drive. "Slowing them down" is not stopping them, and once one person has taken what they want, you are no longer in control of how those images get distributed, and you've wasted your time and money on a solution that was designed to fail from the very start.

Consider watermarking instead. Again Digimark is a viable solution here!

First of all, every security measure in place on that screen failed for me, and I'm using my browser's default setup!
what do you mean?

Second, the JavaScript encoding means:
1. People with JS disabled/unavailable will get a blank page. This includes people using corporate PCs where corporate IT has locked down functionality for safety reasons and public access points that have done the same (Internet cafes, libraries, etc.).
2. People using mobile browsers (PDAs, cell phones, tablet PCs, etc.) may get nothing. This is a rising market, mostly made up of statistically above average wage earners and spenders.
3. These pages will compromise the ability for search engines to derive anything meaningful from them.
4. The encoding didn't stop me from selecting everything on the screen and copying it.
Not to beleaguer the point......but this software would be a monumental waste of money, and if it is free, it would still be a monumental waste of time. ;)

this is why I asked for knowledgeable feedback on the software

Giving your client a false sense of security is not protecting her. Educating her about how the Internet works and helping her make good decisions regarding what she puts online protects her.
point taken.

Do your client a favor and bypass useless Web tricks like the ones on dynamic drive. "Slowing them down" is not stopping them, and once one person has taken what they want, you are no longer in control of how those images get distributed, and you've wasted your time and money on a solution that was designed to fail from the very start.

Consider watermarking instead. Again Digimark is a viable solution here!
valid points - I do agree that the best approach is to explain it's not failproof. However the client is pretty black and white about what she wants. I do think the watermark is a solution worth presenting but my sense is that since these are her portfolio pictures, and she's very precise about them as she should be, she may not want a watermark marring the photos. Still, it's worth presenting.

Thanks again!

First of all, every security measure in place on that screen failed for me, and I'm using my browser's default setup!I went to the test screen where they present all of their "security features," just to see how many of them had any effect on my browser (which I have not altered to bypass JS tricks in any way - I'm using my default browser settings), and every single one of them failed.

I intended to see how many would work and then see how much effort it would take to circumvent those measures, but none of them worked, so it took me 0 time to defeat them :)

I do agree that the best approach is to explain it's not failproofExplaining it in this way would be inaccurate due to understatement. It's not that it's failproof, it's that it is a fundamentally flawed security attempt, a failed technique from the very start.

However the client is pretty black and white about what she wants.I guess if the client is happy to "feel" secure, regardless of whether or not she really is, then throwing a couple scripts into the site will do just that. She'll feel better about her site's security for no good reason, but you've done your due diligence if you explain all of this to her and she still wants it.

I do think the watermark is a solution worth presenting but my sense is that since these are her portfolio pictures, and she's very precise about them as she should be, she may not want a watermark marring the photos.*sigh* - my apologies for mispelling Digimarc (it's with a 'c', not a 'k'), but have you checked out this recommendation yet?

From http://www.digimarc.com/comm/
Digimarc is a pioneer and leading owner of digital watermarking products and intellectual property that allow imperceptible digital information to be embedded in all forms of digitally designed, produced or distributed media content, including digital images, video, audio and print content such as identity documents, packaging and marketing materials.I can only lead the horse to water... :)

Ok, you've convinced this horse (or should I say horse's a**) to take a drink from the well ;)

I do believe you are correct and I do owe it to her to explain the facts as you've explained them to me. I don't mean to be overly persistent and please don't interpret it as stubbornness I'm just trying to work it through in my mind, and in doing so you have convinced me to present this properly to my client. :)

re: the digimarc, I just checked out your link, I'm an idiot, I shouldn't have discarded it without researching first, what can I say 'cept sorry I am a nincompoop :blush:

thanks for your help!!

I don't mean to be overly persistent and please don't interpret it as stubbornness I'm just trying to work it through in my mind, and in doing so you have convinced me to present this properly to my client.I've always been a strong advocate of full and accurate client education/disclosure on technology-related affairs, and sometimes I hammer pretty hard in the name of responsibility. I didn't think for a minute you were intending to present information irresponsibly - I just wanted to make sure you had accurate information to present. I'm glad you intend to do so :)

re: the digimarc, I just checked out your link, I'm an idiot, I shouldn't have discarded it without researching first, what can I say 'cept sorry I am a nincompoopNo need to apologize. I'm glad you see some merit in that link. IIRC, Photoshop comes with Digimarc installed, though there may be a registration fee involved if you want to personalize your watermark. A quick Web search for digital watermarking might reveal other options of interest, though Digimarc is easily the most prominent in the industry.

You're awesome! thank you

Watermarking is an option. Both visible and invisible watermarking involve stamping your image in such a way that it can be identified as your image. Using a combination of the two is a very good way to make sure everyone realizes that you own the rights to your images.

Watermarking is an option. Both visible and invisible watermarking involve stamping your image in such a way that it can be identified as your image. Using a combination of the two is a very good way to make sure everyone realizes that you own the rights to your images.

Hi there Blubber,
Yes, I checkout out the digimarc filter for Photoshop and downloaded a trial and sent that option to my client, I'm still waiting to hear back, but I'm actually thinking this is a good option for some of my other clients who have images but haven't even considered a watermark.

Thanks again!

That is such a bummer.....

Not to beleaguer the point but what about this software....
http://www.share2s.com/protect.html#web-site-encrypt

Just want to try to examine all options....thanks in advance :)


Just for the record about this and similar site protection tools:
http://tnt.goldnet.ca/argh/siteenc.png

The way to have people not steal your images from your site is to not put them up in the first place.

And these days, people know how to edit watermarks off one's images.