Hi Will & Asher,
Sorry if I sounded harsh, but the false
"protecting" images on the web is one of my pet peaves as
it simply does not work. Any developer or designer who claims otherwise has either lied to you or does not know what they are talking about.
Asher Kelman said:
1. The sites pictures are linked it two seconds: simply drag the image to a fresh browser window where the url will now appear in the address box.
This works in Firefox and IE 6 with an extra step. First the inline frame on the normal style image must be dragged to a new window. This opens the inline frame at its correct size. Then the image must be dragged to a new window.
What this also tells me is that your web design is implicitly resizing images in your default view which means that any and all effort at sharpening you put into the crafting of your images is thrown away when the browser (Firefox/IE/...) resizes your images to fit. Thus your images are not being shown at their full potential.
Asher Kelman said:
2. The pictures are readily copied even faster by dragging to the desktop.
This works in Firefox. In IE 6 it simply create a shortcup to the URL/webpage.
One can also simply save the page to their computer and the images will get saved in a subdirectory.
Asher Kelman said:
However,
1. I didn't see any "copy right notice" or "silly script-based copyright notice"! Is this just a windows thing?
It looks like this:
It is a Javascript notification that is based upon browser detection via DOM (Document Object Model) object detection (typically a bad idea due to it being unreliable) and it appears to be aimed solely at IE and Mozilla so it will not work with many other browsers. Asher already noted Safari and I can add Opera to the list where it does nothing. This lack of uniform behavior is why I note that object detection is unreliable.
The actual code from the page is below with the code that is unreliable and limited marked in red.
<script>
<!--
var theWarning="WARNING!\n This content is copyrighted.\n You may not copy it.";
function forIE4(){
if (event.button==2){
alert(theWarning);
return false;
}
}
function forNS(e){
if (document.getElementById&&!document.all||document.layers){
if (e.which==2||e.which==3){
alert(theWarning);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers){
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
document.onmousedown=forNS;
}
else if (document.all&&!document.getElementById){
document.onmousedown=forIE4;
}
document.oncontextmenu=new Function("alert(theWarning);return false")
// -->
</script>
The failure of this script is problematic.
But the real issue issue is that when a user attempts to right click and open a link in a new tab or window this code accuses a potential client of being a thief when saving such images as savvy image consumers know is fully within their fair use rights in the USA. This is just a very poor business image to project and makes you look either neurotically paranoid or grossly untrusting. Neither project the image of someone a professional wants to do business with.
The reason I say this is my right click brings up a
context menu for normal usage (color emphasis is mine) and your script accuses users doing normal things unrelated to copying images of attempted theft (which it is legally not in the USA due to fair use rights) when they may not be doing any such thing. This is what your site did to me when I was doing no such thing (I was actually just opening the page in IE from Firefox).
Asher Kelman said:
2. The front page images, of course, can be captures by screenshot Pro. 2 seconds/image.
Asher Kelman said:
3.Contact info comes up normally. It has Name, Address, tel number. What is missing?
Are you saying the coding for that page is badly written and therefore a route for site hacking?
I disable all scripts by default for security reasons and this page comes up with a flash animation and no links at all. i.e.,
Which leaves potential clients without Flash installed unable to see any images and no text on the page at all if Javascript is not enabled. This is bad usability and fails to get your message out. While this is less of an issue when sharing visual art, it is still not a good practice.
One should really have all their basic site info in plain old HTML. The reason is usability. Plain old HTML can be read in a text browser and is more likely to be usable by those using huge fonts and other things.
The HTML on the homepage contains
some minor errors mostly related to usability at a glance. The
CSS also fails to validate all of which can lead to undefined or ill behavior as web browsers change. Albeit, IE is not CSS compliant anyway.
Asher Kelman said:
4. "your paranoia with the right click thing simply makes you look fascist and greedy to consumers which are not selling points for bringing in customers due to the alienating factor."
As noted above, the code is simply not of a quality to do more than alienate the roughly 90% of potential clients using IE or Mozilla based browsers. The 90% statistic is fresh data as of roughly 60 seconds ago off an e-commerce site. My personal site yields about 88% or 89%of visitors being hit by the script placing both stats within a reasonable tolerance of one another.
Asher Kelman said:
Will,
Your website is wonderful. I find the site attactive to use. The pictures are great. That is all esthetics. After all that is one of the strengths of your work you are selling.
I agree the site looks good.
Asher Kelman said:
Sean is a straight shooter, so I hope the harshness doesn't come over wrong. Feedback that is just praise and P.C., is of limited value. So take the remarks in context of perceptive insight and free advice from a programmer.
How P.C. Asher. <smile> Sean is often abrasive when his buttons are pushed. <sly smile>
Asher Kelman said:
It would certainly concern me is if had weak spots in my website for viris pr other malicious probing or use of your website.
The issue at hand is the site fails to work if users protect themselves from potentially malicious code. I allow scripts to run on my computer on a case by case basis and if I cannot see value in them, then I do not let them run as every script is a potential security risk.
Asher Kelman said:
One thing I might suggest is that we could consider that our web-posted images will be downloaded and that at least they should bear one's copyright on the front but also in the EXIF/IPTC info embedded in the image itself. The identification of the copyright owner and how to legally license the imagecould bring in income and in some cases would be a key factor in claiming damages.
Saving off the image I note the EXIF notes Photoshop Elements 4 and that is all.
Will,
How are you saving your images? Are you using
Save For Web or
Save As?
Save For Web strips metadata from images and is lower quality than
Save As and I would recommend not using it with the exception of tiny web images like site layout elements of tiny size.
If you are using Save As, then how are you getting your images into PSE as that may be stripping the metadata.
I would also note that adding IPTC data to all your images and noting the image is copyright, that the image belongs to you, and providing contact info would be wise. Especially with some greedy folk trying to sneek through the
nasty orphaned works legislation get their way.
Anyway, my real point was that the Javascript copyright alert does not work and in the end solely serves to alienate potential clients. If you really want to protect them, then pure Flash sites almost work. But people can then use screen capture which will fail to retain metadata. Hence, you would be better off ensuring your images contain metadata noting you own them and letting people easily save them so that such data is retained than having your works copied and orphaned.
enjoy your day,
Sean