Forum Moderators: buckworks
Among other things, we sell a lot of fuses. Big fuses, in the $2 to $200 range.
I was in the process of adding another line of fuses so I went to one (of two) vendors that we get wholesale fuses from to get some pictures for our site.
The first one had that stupid no right click code. So I cancelled the order and re-placed it with his competitor.
Now I realize that most are a little (ok, a lot) less hysterical than me about this issue, but I just thought I would post it as a warning that anything that might upset your browsers and/or buyers should not be on your website.
yulia said: I use NRC feature on my site and have no decrease in sale, site popularity or increase in customer’s/visitor’s complaints.
yulia said: It is unlikely that my visitors and customers use RC feature to view my website and to make a purchase. NRC feature is for sneaky competitors and Internet thieves. It serves it purpose.
The 'sneaky competitors and Internet thieves are not even close to being deterred by disabling RC.
yulia said: I am not going to argue with anyone.
yulia said: You have a mentality of highly educated well trained computer professionals.
yulia said: (Just our of topic, last year I was working at the factory, where engineering department employees did not know that is Google – true story.)
yulia said: I sell specialty products (not high tech). I bet, if you need the product I am selling – you are more likely buy it regardless of website features that might irritate you.
My company has spent more elsewhere or done without when confronted with unprofessional or uneducated businesses.
Andy
Why aren't you using the firefox extension to get around
no-right-click code if this is that important to you?
Because I was not using FireFox.
It was not "important" to me, we all know how easy it is to get around.
I did because the website is pretty much a total amateur job with other problems and that was just the last straw.
As someone pointed out, one object of NRC is to send a clear message that the images are copyright and permission to casually appropriate them is denied. Hence strengthening your case if the matter comes to court.
I must say that I am disturbed by the attitude expressed in this thread that if it is possible to steal something then it is morally OK to do so. And any attempts to prevent or hinder theft are to be despised - don't try to stop us stealing what's yours as we are big and tough enough to break your door down. I have to say that I am opposed to this attitude - stealing is stealing, even if the stolen items are poorly or unprotected, and the internet is not a licence to commit crime.
A good deal of this forum is taken up by tales of dishonest customers - but every so often a whiff of dishonest or unscrupulous traders surfaces as well.
expressed in this thread that if it is possible to steal something then it is morally OK to do so..
Please show me which message said anything like that.
As someone pointed out, one object of NRC is to send a clear message that the images are copyright and permission to casually appropriate them is denied. Hence strengthening your case if the matter comes to court.
Really this issue will become academic in time. Firefox (and I believe Opera) already provide an option to disallow sites from doing things like using NRC, tinkering with window sizes, turning off the status bar, etc. It will be only a matter of time before IE also includes this option.
Personally I have unchecked ALL of the advanced JavaScript settings in Firefox there by eliminating the ability to mess with any of the GUI features of Firefox.
"If you upload anything on the web, you should expect people to take or use the said media. Why do people post original artwork online when you really can't protect it? I like to take a no-right-click image, photoshop it, and email it to the site I took it from. It feels good. "
In other words, if I can take something which I know perfectly well is not mine and no-one can stop me, then I will.
You say you did not place a $40K order because the vendor uses NRC - I don't really believe you, but if you are so bitterly offended by NRC then I have the idea that you are unlikely to be a very satisfactory customer either, and may perhaps search diligently for something else to whinge about. Possibly the vendor is better off without you and your admitted hysterics. Also, it is not very bright to inform the vendor (you say one of two) who can work out that he is the one who did not get your order - my own policy is that "Prices may vary according to customer's attitude" and in future you may find that you get less favourable terms and longer lead times.
People saying things like "I'll never have anything to do with a site that uses NRC" or "NRC makes me think they are hiding something."
What the hell are your all talking about?
A picture of a fuse is still art. It may not be a gorgeous painting, but someone had to hire a photographer and set up the photo shoot. It does not matter if they shoot a fuse or super-model, someone paid for it and they are trying to protect their investment.
They could of just watermarked their images as people have said, but it sounds like everyone would complain about that too.
I also block the Google Image and Ask bots, to keep my images off the search engines.
To prevent sites from direct-linking to my images, I also check the HTTP Header for the referring page requesting the image. If it's a site other than my own site, I send them an image of a hot blonde posing on a bed (original artwork, of course), with the watermark, "Don't steal images".
I too like to open pages in a new window, especially on sites that have many levels of products, and comparisons are not as easy to do without opening different products in new windows.
There was a site that I used to buy stuff from where I did just that. Then, they implemented NRC. On top of that, when you tried to right click to open in a new window, you got a javascript popup warning "Don't steal images!" or something similar. Not a way to encourage a customer to make a purchase.
I had no interest in their images. While I can respect their desire to protect their images, NRC is the wrong way to do it. If it makes things more difficult for the customer, it is probably a bad idea.
I have not made a purchase from that site since. That's not some kind of moral statement or anything. It's just that it is not that easy or quick to go through their site anymore, and is just easier to do so with one of their competitors that does not do NRC.
If I want to buy something, don't make it difficult for me!
Those of you that don't think that NRC is costing you sales ought to realize that your competitor is just a click or two away! Potential customers won't likely tell you why they left your site--they just leave.
To prevent sites from direct-linking to my images, I also check the HTTP Header for the referring page requesting the image. If it's a site other than my own site, I send them an image of a hot blonde posing on a bed (original artwork, of course), with the watermark, "Don't steal images".
I found a better way... I just replace the image with an advertisement for my site. It's especially good for sites where the thief was too lazy to input height and width. I just use a huge graphic that dominates their page. :-)
I found a better way... I just replace the image with an advertisement for my site. It's especially good for sites where the thief was too lazy to input height and width. I just use a huge graphic that dominates their page. :-)
That is by far my favorite way. In fact we have an image made up in about 3 sizes that is just something like "visit [our url]" for that.
For the most part I don't really care if people steal pictures of products - but I hate hotlinks.
A picture of a fuse is still art. It may not be a gorgeous painting, but someone had to hire a photographer and set up the photo shoot. It does not matter if they shoot a fuse or super-model, someone paid for it and they are trying to protect their investment.
OK, once again for those that had trouble understanding my previous comments on this, let me say this again in very plain English.
The images in question were marketing photos supplied by the MANUFACTURER of the item. The website in question did not own them, the manufacturer does.
The images in question were marketing photos supplied by the MANUFACTURER of the item. The website in question did not own them, the manufacturer does.
One question though... did the site modify the marketing photos in any way?
A couple years ago, I had a situation where I modified the photos provided by the manufacturer to better suit my site. Another site copied my modified photos for use on their site.
The manufacturer told me I could tell them to stop using my modified images on their site.
In cases where someone has modified the original manufacturer's photos, another reseller may or may not be able to copy the images from that website. Would depend upon the manufacturer's usage restrictions.
OK, once again for those that had trouble understanding my previous comments on this, let me say this again in very plain English.The images in question were marketing photos supplied by the MANUFACTURER of the item. The website in question did not own them, the manufacturer does.
So why did you decide to infringe on the copyright of the seller instead of waiting for the images from the manufacturer? Ownership is related to the copyright of the published content.
People are trying to tell you to use some common sense here. The original images might have come from one particular source but the final product is the copyrighted property of the website owner. Even if you have the right to use the images from the manufacturer, that doesn't give you the legal right to scrape someone's website because they have something you want.
It still cracks me up that all this originated from your decision not to buy a product because of the website design rather than the merits of the product or company.
[edited by: TXGodzilla at 8:00 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2006]
because of the website design rather than the merits of the product or company...
And how do you know that those were not also factored in?
You obviously have not read my other replies on this subject or you would know that it was just one of the factors, but it was also the one that tipped it over the edge to go to another company. I am not going to struggle with some website that has script errors, flash that plays everytime you open any page or use the backbutton, and NRC all rolled into one.
As far as the "merits of the product", well since they are made by a division of General Electric, I doubt that they would be any better getting them from one distributor than another.
One question though... did the site modify the marketing photos in any way?A couple years ago, I had a situation where I modified the photos provided by the manufacturer to better suit my site. Another site copied my modified photos for use on their site.
I don't know about your situation in particular, but many of the companies that we get marketing product photos from explicitly say something like something like this (a copied example):
"you are not allowed to edit or change the pictures in any way - and their copyright will always stay with us."
[edited by: Wlauzon at 12:33 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2006]
You obviously have not read my other replies on this subject or you would know that it was just one of the factors, but it was also the one that tipped it over the edge to go to another company. I am not going to struggle with some website that has script errors, flash that plays everytime you open any page or use the backbutton, and NRC all rolled into one.
"No right click" was one of the lesser factors that went into selecting the vendor for a $40,000 sale
What are you going to say in response?
"It is our company policy to turn off javascript for security reasons". Next question?
True. I add watermarks with the hope that the time it takes to remove the watermark is greater than the time it takes to get the digital camera out of the closet and take their own picture.
Watermarks are the only effective way to stop the casual image thief, regardless if they right-click or PrntScrn to the clipboard.
