Online image copy prevention--How did he do that?

<p>In the gallery section of ralphgibson.com when you right-click an image you get a pop-up window with the following message:</p>

<blockquote>"WARNING

This media is protected by copyright and may not be downloaded. Please contact us about your usage rights."</blockquote>

<p> Does anyone know how this is done? TIA, Nacio Jan Brown</p>

<p>It takes all of 2 seconds to get around that, so it's not clear what benefit you will get from it. </p>

It's usually done with a little bit of JavaScript.

 

Like Jeff said though, it's pretty pointless of someone wants to copy the image. One can just go to their computer browser

cache where it's already stored. View the source code to get the image file location and copy it from there directly. Or screenshot.

<p>As has been said, the code is simple but I've stopped using it myself because it is annoying - it annoys me on my own website when I right-click to use TinEye, and on others when I want to look at EXIF data; and it really doesn't stop copying for more than a few seconds.</p>

<p>It will prevent the Nacio Browns of the world from copying the image until they ask about it on photo.net, google search it, ect...</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I had considered using the technique but based upon the answers I believe I'll pass on it. njb</p>

<p>Even flash sites can be copied with a simple screen capture but the benefit, IMO, of such a notice is the fact that it is a notice. It clearly defines the rights to the person wanting to copy the image. It may stop honest people and it certainly adds support to blatant copyright violation.</p>

<p>You can never stop dishonest people but you can put everyone on CLEAR notice.</p>

John,

 

 

It's a notice that he's an idiot, that's what he's telling everyone

 

Before anyone could ever right click to get a popup saying "don't download this" they already have downloaded it. It's

just ignorant. The file has already been downloaded to the user's harddrive.

 

 

And ya, I know most of you are photographers and not webmasters or network admins. Just don't do something like

this that makes you look stupid like this.

 

"I've given you permission to copy my file, but you dont have permission from me to go look on your harddrive for it." "it's on your C drive but you can't open it, I said so."

<blockquote>

<p>It's a notice that he's an idiot, that's what he's telling everyone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, you really think Ralph Gibson is an idiot? Hmmm, not a very nice way to speak about a great photographer who is hardly likely to have done the CSS and scripting, or anything other than work on design and selection for his website. Check the bio on the website.</p>

<p>I agree, it took all of a few seconds with a Web(Cache)Browser app to get the URL of the image file to view and download any individual image. Since he uses javascript to present the Web page(s), the code doesn't directly indicate the URL for the image file(s). I will give him a lot of credit with the code for at least hiding images from obvious simple access, but it seems a lot of code for nothing when an app will find it.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This media is protected by copyright <strong>and may not be downloaded</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wanted to write that it is retarded(I did and deleted it several times previous to posting). But that word is no longer acceptable in polite or impolite company. In order for a user to view the image, it MUST be downloaded to the computer or cell phone browser. I did not mean to say that Ralph Gibson specifically is an idiot, his webmaster is, and everyone involved in the decision to post that inane idiotic statement on the website. If it was his decision to put it on there, then yes he is an idiot.</p>

<p>Theoretically it is a Catch 22 or Mobius Loop. In practice, it is stupid.</p>

<p>For an image to be seen on the web, here is the process.<br /> 1) The file must have permissions to be viewed, in a directory that the user has permission to copy the file from.<br /> 2) The user must type in the directory and file name of the file. HTTP allows for the file name to be coded in web pages. Which HTTP tags used and read determines how the file is viewed by the browser.<br /> 3) The browser then sends a request to the server requesting the file, if the file is shared, permissions are set to read/copy, then the file is sent(served) to the browser computer's harddrive, stored in the cache of the browser.<br /> 4) At the same time, the local browser displays the image to the monitor. The file must already be downloaded before you ever see it.</p>

<p>What Ralph Gibson is saying then is thus, "I am giving you permission to download the file, You may not download the file." That's retarded or idiotic, whichever word you find acceptable vernacular.</p>

<p>Well someone is saying it, but I seriously doubt it's Gibson. He may not understand any of the technologies...</p>

<p>Richard, with respect to your list of things for an image on the Web.</p>

<p>1.--The user doesn't need read rights, the Website's server software must have access to the directory (that's what denial of read access with the .htaccess file does sometimes when you type in a directory and get a message saying you don't have permission). The file needs read rights.</p>

<p>2.--The file does not have to be coded in the html, that's what image databases and scripts do, hide the file organization and structure through programs, servers and file names. This is often done in layers so it's not obvious (eg. Smumug), but eventually the entire pathname is assembled to the browser to retrieve and display which is available through trial and error or an app (WebCacheBrowser) which saves it.</p>

<p>4.--Yes, the image has to eventually be displayed on the user's browser, either from a single file or assembled with image slicing, and then can be downloaded, but it's why some images are resized for display to keep users from getting and seeing the original (larger image) or are sliced where the user can't easily reassemble them. The browser's cache does not necessarily save the actual image but a browser window preview of it.</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>1) Ostensibly the group 'everyone' has been given rights to the file. Any random user will be in the group 'everyone'. So yes, the user needs rights, and the file or directory needs to have rights set to allow those users and groups. I did not want to complicate the matter with, say, a discussion of intranet or extranet permissions which are usually more discriminatory than a public web server.</p>

<p>Permissions between the most two common webserver platforms, those Apache based or IIS based, are done differently. Regardless, both require the user to have permission to copy the file, nonetheless. Denial of read, of a directory, is a permission based system. And is relatively new, if you remember correctly directory browsing was often permitted by everyone for about the first half of this Internet age. Permission granted was the default position, now it is not.</p>

<p>It is very possible for me as a webmaster to limit an image file so that only you, Scott M. Knowles, has permission to read it. Denying everyone else from downloading it. And that is how it would be done, by denying permission to 'everyone' and you would be on the exception list.</p>

<p>2) No, it does not need to be HTML(via HTTP). A file can be copied(downloaded) via FTP for example, if the permissions are set to allow that, and the ports are open. Files can be downloaded via many different protocols, provided the user has permission, and the file has permission to be read. <br /> And true, browsers can use different programming languages other than HTML to access files on a server, that is correct (just too complicated for this thread). And still regardless, if some type of ASP or PHP is being run, the user still needs to have permissions to the file. They also now need permissions to run the server side code as well.</p>

<p>4) I agree that it is technically possible to browse a file without specifically storing it to cache(the webbrowsers cache). These situations are so atypical that it would have been confusing to readers who already are unfamiliar with how the typical file copy is taking place. At the very least the file needs to downloaded to memory, and stored there locally to be useful in the first place. Again, though you are correct, it does not change the idiocy of having a "you may not download this file" notice; the file still needed to be download in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well someone is saying it, but I seriously doubt it's Gibson. He may not understand any of the technologies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff,<br>

Then send him an email or something. Suggest that he have it removed. Because the whole thing is just silly. </p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsb5W0m3S-Y</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the whole thing is just silly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But not in the way you think.</p>