Need some help to educate client
-
I have this client who cannot get through her head that the best way to protect photos on her website is to watermark them.
Does anyone knows about a good site that I can point her to, so she get's the fuck off my back? A "for dummies" kind of site would be good. I've found a couple of articles on blogs, but they seem too technical for this bonehead. I might water it down for her, but I prefer her to read it from a third party.
I could resort to some javascript gimmick to disable right click or some stupid shit like that, but that would be my last option.
Or should I just do that and forget about trying to educate anyone... ?
-
You could write a shell script/batch file to call imagemagick and attach a watermark automatically on all files in a directory, which would not be hard. I believe you would need to use something like this:
composite -compose over -gravity GTYPE 'WATERMARK_FILE' '$PHOTO_PATH$p' FILETYPE:-
where
- GTYPE is the position you want the water mark (expressed as a compass direction)
- WATERMARK_FILE is the image you want to use as a watermark, probably a semi-transparent PNG
- $PHOTO_PATH is the path to the directory containing the photos
- FILETYPE is the output file type, which would normally be the same as the input
@fatdog said:
I could resort to some javascript gimmick to disable right click or some stupid shit like that, but that would be my last option.
Not a good idea, since the viewer can simply disable Javascript, or save the entire web page, to get round that. If they can see it, they can save it.
-
@fatdog said:
I could resort to some javascript gimmick to disable right click or some stupid shit like that, but that would be my last option.
I remember one site that used a script to slice a picture up almost like a jigsaw and present it within a <table> construct. Right-click/saving only got you one little piece, but you'd never know (once all the pieces were loaded) that it wasn't a "whole" image you were viewing.
Of course, doing this increased the load time of the page, as you went from 2 hits (html + .jpg) to around 75 (html + 74x jpg). Doesn't stop anyone from taking a screenshot and paste/saving, but trying to slurp the site with wget or whatever would only get you a bunch of useless little picture chunks.
@fatdog said:
Or should I just do that and forget about trying to educate anyone... ?
Some people are too dense. They've got an anti-intelligence field that repells all new knowledge. Maybe a demonstration would help, but generally just trying to explain something to them with words does no good. All that bone has plugged up their ear canals.
-
@MarcB said:
I remember one site that used a script to slice a picture up almost like a jigsaw and present it within a <table> construct. Right-click/saving only got you one little piece, but you'd never know (once all the pieces were loaded) that it wasn't a "whole" image you were viewing.
Of course, doing this increased the load time of the page, as you went from 2 hits (html + .jpg) to around 75 (html + 74x jpg). Doesn't stop anyone from taking a screenshot and paste/saving, but trying to slurp the site with wget or whatever would only get you a bunch of useless little picture chunks.
This is actually pretty clever. I would suggest taking it a step further and using odd shapes with transparent edges that have to be layered on top of each other with Javascript. This would mean people with JS couldn't even view the image and it would require more than just reconstructing a grid to save the image. You could take it a step further still and just flash to show the images. Obviously this doesn't prevent people from hitting the page and taking a screenshot, but the point is to make it more difficult for most people. I also wouldn't worry too much about the extra load time and it shouldn't be dramatic.
@MarcB said:
All that bone has plugged up their ear canals.
Am I the only one who has no fucking clue what this means? I just.. I don't get it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Am I the only one who has no fucking clue what this means? I just.. I don't get it.
A thick skull? Like I must have if you are being sarcastic.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Am I the only one who has no fucking clue what this means? I just.. I don't get it.
A thick skull? Like I must have if you are being sarcastic.
Not at all sarcastic. I don't quite see how "thick skull" implies "bone plugging up their ear canals", but I'll take your word on it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't quite see how "thick skull" implies "bone plugging up their ear canals", but I'll take your word on it.
Was just my guess.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This is actually pretty clever. I would suggest taking it a step further and using odd shapes with transparent edges
That'd work these days, and be a much better/nastier solution. But I saw the html jigsaw trick a while back, when html was just being introduce to the lovely likes of <blink> and <marquee>.
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't quite see how "thick skull" implies "bone plugging up their ear canals",
All the extra bone's gotta go somewhere, so the ear canal's an available "grow into" spot.
-
@Physics Phil said:
You could write a shell script/batch file to call imagemagick...
This was basically the original plan with my php thumb-watermark class, of which I feel very proud of.
This lady has been told already a few times why anything else than a watermark, can be overcome and is a waste of time-money. Disable javascript, printscreen, hell, I even explained the "wooden table approach", because I'm pretty sure that javascript and printscreen sound like neurology to her.
But even after the watermark way was approved, paranoia strikes back. And I find myself trying to convince her again.
I just want to get this project done already, and I'm afraid I might just have to do some clever-stupid useless coding.
Yes I will charge for that, I just don't fell like wasting my time with this right now.
