NO javascript is going to keep someone that WANTS an image from downloading it. If someone is SO worried about their images being downloaded that they need to resort to infantile “no right click” scripts then they need to NOT put stuff on the ‘net. Plain as that.
OR …
they need to be artistic and use a flash front end to load the pictures. That would work much better in the long run, and be prettier.
I can’t even get my gallery to work on my current theme.. LOL 🙂
If I can get something that simple to work then I may try something else…
Wow. Whooami, you gots ta chill! 🙂
The right-click javascript trick is good (not infantile) to keep out those who only mildly want your pictures.
The Flash embedded galleries are good for keeping out people who moderately want your pictures.
Nothing will keep out people who strongly want your pictures. You are sending your pictures to their browser… there’s nothing you can do against a determined and knowledgable user. Heck, any hack can do a screen capture if they wanted. Do a creative commons and copyright notices and hope for the best.
Note: The Javascript trick will discourage 95% of user copy efforts… so take that for what it’s worth.
Since we’re on the topic, here’s my gallery.
Note: The Javascript trick will discourage 95% of user copy efforts…
fascinating, and you got this statistic from where, exactly? and yes, its infantile.
and dont worry, Im sure no one minds you hijacking the thread to advertise your own site. 😛
Note: The Javascript trick will discourage 95% of user copy efforts…
And discourage some users from visiting your site in the first place. Many people right-click on links to open them in a new window and other things. Not to mention no right-click is a huge sign of a crappy site.
I think you’re doing more damange than good with it.
I think the javascript can me modified to only apply to images, but I’m not sure. Viper you bring up a good point about the right click for links… I’m always a little annoyed at sites that disable right click. But then again, I’m usually there for the content, not to see what I can right click on.
Most suggestions offer no more than a hindrance to anyone wanting your image.
If you want to protect the images stored on the server and in cache, consider using encrypted images that are displayed in a security applet. I’m surprised the option is not mentioned here because its been available since 1998.
If you want to further protect images from screen capture and printscreen, that solution is also available.
Of course there are workarounds to these solutions, but they have been the most secure solutions available since 1998 and it doesn’t get better… no-one has comparable solutions despite their claims to the contrary.
Banks and online surveys use these solutions and they are the best available!
Want to know more?
Visit their demo site at http://www.artistscope.com
Secure Image Express – US$35 per web site ($20 for extra domain/alias).
Just curious, for the applet approach, why would you want to encrypt the image ?
Is it because you want to cache the images locally and don’t want anyone with access to the cache to now have access to your image ?
