The praxis of right click blocking

[PLNR]

HI guys,

I am fully aware of the whole right-click blocking debate and have heard some sound points from both sides. However, I have come across this portfolio building platform –

http://www.portfoliobox.net/

– which features built-in right click disabling. Now, I went and visited one of their featured sites and, yup, no right clicking on images. I then downloaded the site’s files into my computer just to check whether I could get my hands on the images. And voilà!

I couldn’t.

All I get are to me some unscrutinable file extensions. Anyone knows what’s happening here and how’s it done? Is this a good solution?

Cheers mates!

[PLNR]

I just realized I may have posted this on the wrong forum.
Perhaps a mod could kindly move this over to JavaScript Jungle?
Much appreciated.

[Watson90]

One thing you could do is watermark your images, but even then, with the power of Photoshop and its content-aware tool, It’d probably be a doddle to get rid of it.

[Senff]

ALT+PRINT SCREEN will get you anything you want. No right-click-blocker can beat that.

[PLNR]

Guys, guys,

I do realize all that.

I’m just wondering whether in this case –

http://www.portfoliobox.net/

Their method appears to circumvent the usual hack of download the files and grabbing the pick. If this turns out to be true, **the combined results** of right click disabling plus this mish-mashing of pic files inconspicuously scrambled around obscure file formats, well, it just might deter
a good 80% of pic stealers.

I’m asking is about this specific case.

Thanks for you input. Truly appreciated.

PS: I’ve read about a Print Alt Screen counter-measure somewhere.

[Senff]

Your original question was “is this a good solution”? I tend to say sure, it will keep a certain amount of people from stealing content.

However, I don’t know how much work is put into it, which makes it impossible to say if it’s worth the trouble or not. I also do believe that it’s trying to find the solution to a problem that may not even exist. Are there actually a lot of people out there who steal the pictures and do unauthorized/illegal stuff with it?

[PLNR]

@Senff ,

Fair enough. You do have a point. It just seems to me that for people who want to generate income from the goods they offer on their sites, one’s too many.

Have you checked their featured sites. Take
http://kristinabazan.net/gallery/17636/portfolio/

This was built with portfoliobox. You can’t right click. I’ve downloaded the files and can’t seem to find an image file there. Perhaps I’m missing something, a picture format I am not unaware of. Or are the files encrypted and decoded?

I’m with you on this. Me too, I’d like to know the inner workings of this technique in order to decide whether it’s worth the trouble. If it isn’t I’ll stick to the tactics described in a CSS tricks post.

[Senff]

> You can’t right click. I’ve downloaded the files and can’t seem to find an image file there.

If you’re asking how it’s done…. Disabling right-click is done with easy jQuery:

$(document).ready(function(){
$(document).bind(“contextmenu”,function(e){
return false;
});
});

The images can be downloaded pretty easily, not sure why you’re having trouble with it because they’re just there in the source code:
http://cdn.portfoliobox.net/__clients/544/ppics/medium/169557mwa9w2.jpg
http://cdn.portfoliobox.net/__clients/544/ppics/medium/526582bw9a12.jpg

And so on. Nothing encrypted or encoded, this is how it shows up in the source:

…..

…..

[TheDoc]

Use watermarks, it’s the only way to stop people from stealing content. Even then, a professional can easily go in and trace what you’ve done and/or clone out the watermark.

Removing basic OS functions, like right clicking, is *never* a solution.

> I am fully aware of the whole right-click blocking debate and have heard some sound points from both sides.

I have never heard a good argument for implementing it.

[Watson90]

@TheDoc, yeah basically what I said. Seems the most appropriate solution.

[PLNR]

@Senff

I was talking about their forwarded example:

http://kristinabazan.net/gallery/17636/portfolio/

built with portfoliobox, not portoliobox.net itself.

@TheDoc
Truth be told, my mind isn’t made up about this. Because casual users certainly wouldn’t browse this kind of. On the other hand, committed individuals seeking to illegally fetch material will find a way to. What I find interesting about , another example,

http://maryaustin.net/gallery/image/14228#3

Is that a great looking, medium hi res, pic is provided, precisely because they’re confident it won’t be snatched via the traditional methods. You can’t right click and I’ve tried downloading the files and can’t seem to find a pic in there.

But I can certainly see your point.

[TheDoc]

Took me five seconds to get a direct URL to that image.

[PLNR]

Ahh…
I see.
My bad then.

«*slowly, inconspicuously, leaves the stage*»

[Senff]

> I was talking about their forwarded example:
> http://kristinabazan.net/gallery/17636/portfolio/
> built with portfoliobox, not portoliobox.net itself.

Yes, me too. See my original message, the photos come from KristinaBazan.net, not portfoliobox.net itself.

[TheDoc]

I have never understood the disable right click. Protecting your assets is important, yes, but hindering a user’s experience shouldn’t be part of it. If you plan on selling images through your website, then by all means toss a watermark on them. If you’re displaying things that you’ve previously done as part of a portfolio then let your work speak for itself and don’t put any watermark on it.

If somebody wants to steal your image and claim it as their own you can try to be happy that you’ve created a body of work good enough to steal from. If you actually *find* a person stealing from you, deal with it on a case by case basis.

[Author]

Posts