Thousands of Photo.net Images Hotlinked to Amazon.com Seller Forum

<blockquote>

<p>Josh Root:<br /> I am not in favor of disabling right click for the simple reason that it does not do anything to offer protection except give ignorant photographers the idea that is does. People need to understand the risks and rewards of having their images online and no expect some "magic potion" to protect them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First off, let me say that the effort that was behind the stomping out of the fire on Amazon by many here was both encouraging and reassuring.<br>

But I have to politely disagree with what you have said above. For the record, I fully understand that if the public can see your image on a web site like this, than if they want to steal it bad enough, they will and there is no method of security to stop them.<br>

But if you take every measure possible, like a clear message of terms and conditions and even do little things like disable right click, then you are not only telling the would be thief that you are serious, you are telling your valuable subscribers you are serious too.<br>

If the disabling of the right click option only discourages 1% of the usual image theft, it is well worth it. I know there a lot of amateurs on here that think that the risks and rewards of having their images online is worth the occasional image theft, but it is not. You can get critiques of your work through other avenues and not have to expose the the public perception and the good of all photography to this kind of thing. <br>

There are pros on here too that like to take the time to encourage and inform other shooters of all walks. I think this site owes it to everyone, pro or not to provide every bit of theft deterrent even if it makes more of a statement than an actual result.<br>

If people here want to continue to view great photography, than I think there has to be a major change in attitude towards the perceived results of images being stolen even by those who don't think their work is worth stealing. <br>

And I will be happy to pay for a subscription again, but I am going to have to see a few changes in how some things are done here in order to feel good about that.</p>

<p>Hey, Josh, thanks for whatever it was y'all did to put the kibosh on that lame thread over there.</p>

<p>FWIW, I don't think additional protections would have helped any anyway. There were many photos in that thread with watermarks, some that looked like signatures and business logos; several that clearly displayed the copyright symbol, which is unnecessary in the US in the first place. If someone's going to exercise bad judgement and take somebody else's stuff, which we all know is wrong; then, they're either going to get away with it, or someone is going to have to stop them. Technology by itself is not going to replace middle-of-the-road good behavior.</p>

<p>We all know what we're risking when we upload the images. We're not a bunch of little kids who need a babysitter to keep the boogeyman away. And the person who bootlegged somebody's stuff isn't, either. If we go for the maximum protection, we'd never get out of the playpen. Dude was wrong, but we're big boys, and we don't need another techno-nanny.</p>

<p>If dude does something wrong, and he's a man; he can answer to the rest of the men. When that gets out of control, we can all answer to the women. That usually hems it up.</p>

<p>I couldn't help but notice that Amazon has posted a message about a change in their guidlelines.<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.amazonsellercommunity.com/forums/ann.jspa?annID=93">http://www.amazonsellercommunity.com/forums/ann.jspa?annID=93</a><br /><br />which specifically tells their users not to post images for which they don't have the rights. Having that clearly stated there will help the more right-minded people there to better handle the crazies. </p>

<p>Thanks Josh. I strongly agree with you that disabling right click is not in our interest. <br>

It can make navigation a pain (I often use right click and then back to move a page back) and does nothing to secure images. With some of the right click block sites you can simply left click on a picture and drag it to the URL bar to isolate the image at which point you can copy it.</p>

<p>Is it image theft for someone to save a picture to their hard drive and refer to it from time to time? Is it image theft to save a picture from a forum and use it as wallpaper on their PC? Is it image theft to download an image posted in a forum where a photographer has asked for assistance post-processing it?</p>

<p>I do a bit of web site design ... and I think disabling right click, while certainly adding a step to the thieves (but not really protect you) ... it sucks not to be able to select text for googling defenitions and other things.</p>

<p>The same tool that is used often for good, can be used for bad ... not unlike anything else you think of.</p>