Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Photography Discussions > Sales, Exhibitions and Web Presence

Sales, Exhibitions and Web Presence Discussion of commerce models and processes by which Photography reaches clients and the public.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th, 2006, 03:06 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

This thread is an off topic daughter thread from:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com...ead.php?t=1375

This started with Nill Toulme reporting in his 400D having arrived. Then it diverted to discussion of how images can be linked and also how protection schemes don't really work, don't appear in all browsers and can really annoy some users. This I thought is important enough to constitute a separate thread. After all, we have much invested in our images and the orphan laws in the U.S.A. can degrade photographer's rights if one is not careful!





Quote:
Originally Posted by WillGood
Sorry my website does not let me link directly ; )
Yes it does. i.e.,

http://www.williamwgood.com/assets_d...0_149_orig.jpg

This is in the markup.

Beyond that, you should fire your web designer. The site has 3rd rate usability it requires virus enabling scripting to be able to see your contact data which is bad business. Beyond that, the images are easily downloaded even with the silly script based copyright notice which says whomever told you your images would not be downloaded lied to you or is simply technically incompetent. Due to screen capture (the print screen/PrtScn button) you need to accecpt that any images you have on your site will be out there to be used by anyone as they please and 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.

enjoy,

Sean (being honest as someone lied to you)
__________________
[I]"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." [/I]- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
[URL="http://www.envisagement.com/"]http://www.envisagement.com/[/URL]

Last edited by Asher Kelman; November 4th, 2006 at 07:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 4th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean DeMerchant
Yes it does. i.e.,

http://www.williamwgood.com/assets_d...0_149_orig.jpg

This is in the markup.

Beyond that, you should fire your web designer. The site has 3rd rate usability it requires virus enabling scripting to be able to see your contact data which is bad business. Beyond that, the images are easily downloaded even with the silly script based copyright notice which says whomever told you your images would not be downloaded lied to you or is simply technically incompetent. Due to screen capture (the print screen/PrtScn button) you need to accecpt that any images you have on your site will be out there to be used by anyone as they please and 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.

enjoy,

Sean (being honest as someone lied to you)
Sean,

I agree with several points.

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.

2. The pictures are readily copied even faster by dragging to the desktop.

However,

1. I didn't see any "copy right notice" or "silly script-based copyright notice"! Is htis just a windows thing?

2. The front page images, of course, can be captures by screenshot Pro. 2 seconds/image.

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?

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."

since I'm not finding the offending phrases or notices, I don't understand this. Maybe the site has since been repaired?


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 am not programming savvy as Sean is. So I wouldn't have guess the issues he has mentioned in my experience using a Mac and Safari.

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.

It would certainly concern me is if had weak spots in my website for viris pr other malicious probing or use of your website.

One thing that surprised me, looking at "info" of one of your images in PS, that all the data fields are blank!!! I must admit that I download great images of photographers as examples of good work. If I wanted to use them, I'd go to the "info" of hte image to get licensing particulars. Now, I try my best to keep such reference images in folders by name of photgrapher. If I want to download more than 1 or 2 or else want to use an image, I write to the photographer for permission.

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.

Anyway, I do love the picture linked by Sean of the path through the trees. It's beautiful.

The 400D pictures are great too, but so are all the other model images.

I like the tree pciture especially because it has artistic value and is impressive.

Asher
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 4th, 2006, 05:45 PM
WillGood WillGood is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CT / NY
Posts: 21
Default

Hi Sean & Asher
LoL....
First Sean.......I take it you mean well , but I dont think you realize how you come across for the first time. Abrasively.......And unfortunately that turns people off to anything worthwhile you have to say.
You are possibly right about the programming - Im a photographer and I pay someone for the website software. No one lied to me, Im aware the images can be hijacked.
Cheers, William

Hi Asher
Thanks for your kind words & thoughts.
Thats a good point about the IPTC data, Ive gotten lazy ; )
My images are probaly gracing some sites in Eastern Europe and Shanghai : (

Im glad the "tree picture" resonated with you. Those trees were originally planted in a beautiful line for the long driveway of an estate in Norwalk, CT. The estate is now a park, but the trees remain.

Thanks for providing a very comfortable & stimulating website!
Best, William
__________________
William Good
williamwgood dot com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old November 4th, 2006, 06:23 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
2. The front page images, of course, can be captures by screenshot Pro. 2 seconds/image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman
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
__________________
[I]"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." [/I]- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
[URL="http://www.envisagement.com/"]http://www.envisagement.com/[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old November 4th, 2006, 06:29 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillGood
First Sean.......I take it you mean well , but I dont think you realize how you come across for the first time. Abrasively.......And unfortunately that turns people off to anything worthwhile you have to say.
You are possibly right about the programming - Im a photographer and I pay someone for the website software. No one lied to me, Im aware the images can be hijacked.
Hi William,

I am aware of that too and knew it when I wrote it. But I had just been accused of trying to steal an image when I was simply looking to open a link in a different web browser. That puts my back up and does not get smooth or kindly rhetoric out of me. <smile> And said software makes that impression on potential clients which is all around bad form.

Are you aware that a right click followed by pointer shift and a left click can be used in place of the back and forward buttons in IE? There are too many things that people are doing that is right, correct, and proper when right clicking to place accusations on doing that.

Since there were no lies, then I am left with incompetence on the developers part (many details above) as the softwares only result is to alienate potential clients while failing to protect your works as it will make copied works orphaned works 99% of the time. None of this reflects in any positive way in achieving your business goals.

enjoy,

Sean
__________________
[I]"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." [/I]- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
[URL="http://www.envisagement.com/"]http://www.envisagement.com/[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old November 4th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Hi Will,

So B&W in camera doesn't do much except start an argument if you post 'em on a web site....

There are a lot of crap web designs/designers around, so don't worry too much about it, imnsho. If I am looking for anything to buy off a web site, I am not impressed by any sort of scripting or animation or anything fancy, unless its a video demo of something. I am only interested in what I want to buy, not how clever, or dumb, the web designer is. For photos, a simple thumbnail gallery, linked to larger images works best, trivial to produce in html. If the largest image, is say 600 pixels wide, then the sort of folk who would steal that, are not the sort of folk who would buy it anyway, but as I said, you are not alone, in wanting to stop stuff being stolen. Any way, in reality, why does it matter? Life's too short to bother about such things.

Sean said it all, more or less.

Best wishes,

Ray (this missive was writ when this thread was part of the other thread)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!