velryba

some websites has this blocked so you can't open the manu and do a copy etc.

is there any way around it?

thanks

mega_stream

Print screen if it's a picture you're after?
Then paste into paint or a grpahics app and save as a jpeg.

rik1471

Hover over the link/picture, press the right mouse button (keep it pressed), then press the ESC key to remove the javascript popup window. Then release the right mouse button and the menu will appear.

Can be a little tricky at first.

If this is unclear, let me know.

boxst

Hello

Or use the toolbar, select view and then source.

You can then see the code for the page anyway and you should see all the references to the JPG and GIF's. Copy one and paste it directly into the Address bar. The picture will then appear.

Steve.

Dave_A

Use IE6 with the helpful little toolbar that pops up with save/print/email options.

I have used the no-right-click script on my site to stop people easily taking photos off the site - I'd rather they asked first, otherwise I end up having my photos used in other websites without my permission (I'm about to persue two case of this at the moment.....if only they'd asked first....)


Cheers
Dave Adams

=========================================
Website :: www.scoobyphotos.com
email ::::: dave@scoobyphotos.com
=========================================

stevencotton

Just disable javascript for that page, that's all that's stopping it. I really hate, hate, hate people that do that, they clearly have no clue at all since there are other right-click options like "back" and "forward" that they prevent you from using.

Steve.

chiark

Disable javascript, as said above.

If you put a picture on the web, it's absolutely impossible to stop people from copying that picture to their PC.

stevencotton

Off topic but you got to laugh though, the whole idea of the web is to share information - and then peple go about devising poorly thought out ways to prevent it again

If you want to protect your images use copyright, not javascript.

Dave_A

Since when has copyright ever worked within the realms of the internet? I have a copyright notice on my site, yet people have still taken images from my web site and used them in their own 'commercial' websites.

Because of this I need to now persue the issue through solicitors.

Sharing information is fine, but taking others peoples work and using it for commercial purposes is very wrong. I abondoned using no-right-click a while ago because I felt it defeated the purpose of the web, but its a real shame that people don't respect other peoples work.

The people that have taken my photographs haven't emailed to ask if it ok to use them in their own commercial ventures, so I'm left with little option but to persue it legally. Real shame.

The javascript I used even used to just say 'please ask before you use this image commercially', but hey, given the general attitude and tone of the people that use the internet these days, why would I expect courtesy from people that believe they are always in the right.

Perhaps the alternative is for people not to share things that they think may be of interest to a wide range of people. After all it costs me money to develop photographs, why should I fund somebody elses business interests. In future I'm going to have to put a watermark across the whole of the images just to stop people taking them, not something I want to do, but it seems there is little other choice.

Dave Adams
www.scoobyphotos.com

chiark

One of my lecturers, back in 1991, had the following on his door:

"Digital media is the universal solvent of intellectual property"

It's annoying, and I've had parts of my site copied and used for "other purposes". Copyright is just as valid as it's always been, but making information more readily available means its exceedingly difficult to enforce. Just look at the hassle that some high-profile sites have had.

On the other hand, how many of us could put our hands up and say that we've never used Napster, or kazaa lite, or a dodgy piece of software, or ... for whatever reason that we thought justified the act but in the end was still breaking copyright?

Different circumstances, but I would wager that the copyright holder wouldn't see it as too different...


Not trying to judge you here, just open up the debate.

stevencotton

As Nick points out it's a very difficult thing to police. I'd have watermarked the images straight away, especially if they are your income. There really isn't anything you can do short of not publishing them online, because as soon as someone looks at a web page, all that content is on their local machine. There may even be a third (or more) copy sitting on a proxy somewhere which will allow other potential thieves to get their hands on your content even faster!

Technically there is no way to stop that kind of thing from happening, it's like wanting to cut your head off but still stay alive afterwards. All you can do is watermark your images, or save them in very poor quality for online use. I understand the problems people have trying to keep their hard work theirs, I just don't like the methods employed that try and get around it - they don't work, and it prevents me from using the software properly.

Perhaps the TCPA/Palladium thing will help people in that situation in future, but at massive cost to most people

Oh and can I just be the only person, I have _never_ used or owned a copy of napster, kazaa or any P2P software, there isn't _one_ mp3 file on any of my machines, and _all_ of the software I use, both at home and at work, is open source and free. I don't need any commercial software to do anything I want to do

Dave_A

I'm completely with you on this issue Steve, once anything is put up on the internet, its there for the taking.

I have looked at various methods, from javascript to embeding photos in flash movies to try and eliminate the issues without destroying the whole experience of the visit to my site. None of them work very well, hence the reason why I decided to persue the site as a hobby - I don't make money from it, I have no intention of making money from it - I just find it sad that people show little respect for someones hardwork.

I'm also one of the few people that don't use kazza/napster/p2p software etc, I have no need to because I can buy the software I need should I not find a freeware version available. Alternatively I can write the software to do the job I need.

The only mp3 music I've ever listened to has sounded way to tinny for my liking - I prefer to get an original recording, plus its more pleasurable to have fewer quality products then tens of bad quality products!

Anyway, its been an interesting discussion so far, anyone else got any views on this....?

Dave Adams
www.scoobyphotos.com

velryba

thanks for the options

it wasn't pics to copy actualy but to make my live easier with downloading files as it let me downloaded with Win downloader and not Getright. So I can do only 4-5 files in time and then have to click again on next files, where in getright I just list all the files and don't have to think about it anymore.

But when getright used it gaves the "server busy" msg all the time.