Protecting pages on website...2 Questions...

aln · 15 May 2012 at 15:52

If they can see the image, it's already on their local machine. You _CANNOT_ stop it, so every other point is mute. For the record though:

Save as.
View source, copy URL.
Disable JavaScript.
Print screen.

All of these methods will trump your JavaScript solution. So sure, if you want to annoy your users for an ineffective solution, go right ahead.

guyfawkes5 · 15 May 2012 at 23:18

Dano said:
Along with a folder containing the images...

The literal command he named just saves just the page's HTML.

What are you probably referring to is the derivitative 'Save Page (Complete)' command or other browser-dependant implementations of it where the browser will loop through the HTML and retrieve any images or dependant media and stores it in a containing folder along the actual page itself. This isn't foolproof and depends on how the media is embedded.

Dj_Jestar · 15 May 2012 at 23:24

No, it doesn't.

Have you even tried it? Saving a webpage saves the entirety of the content, including any external files such as images and stylesheets by default in a single file (mht) in all current browsers. In older browsers, a separate folder for external content.

Viewing the source, then saving that saves just the html - or select "Webpage only" in the drop box. Either way.. it's a pointless argument. It's not exactly obscure.

guyfawkes5 · 15 May 2012 at 23:33

A webpage is just HTML. A 'save page as' command with a mention of nothing else should just save the textual mark-up of the page unless the command text is semantically incorrect. Whenever you are 'saving a page' look at the parameters the browser asks for, usually it will mention 'webpage (complete)' or whatever the browser chooses to term it, which means it is separately saving embedded media for you.

Dj_Jestar · 15 May 2012 at 23:52

What "commands" are you talking about? Go to your file menu.. click on the "Save", "Save Page" or "Save as.." menu item (depending on what browser you are using) and look at what it saves by default.

Go on. Do it. Then realise you are wrong.

antijoke · 16 May 2012 at 11:12

guyfawkes5 · 16 May 2012 at 14:05

Dj_Jestar said:
What "commands" are you talking about? Go to your file menu.. click on the "Save", "Save Page" or "Save as.." menu item (depending on what browser you are using) and look at what it saves by default.

Go on. Do it. Then realise you are wrong.

It's funny how I repeatedly advised you to look more closely at exactly what you're now asking me to do.

It really must be I don't understand the mundane task you are describing after talking about embedding and watermarking images in Flash, HTML, and session-handling with JavaScript, and absolutely could not be that it is you who doesn't understand the finer point of what is being talked about, and hence keep trying to bring it down to a simpler, easier-to-understand level.

I'll take my leave, the OP is happy with solution described and clearly what I'm imparting at this stage at best isn't being read or at worst ignored.

RoyMi6 · 16 May 2012 at 15:58

anticonscience
File > Save page as...
That will probably give them all your images still.

guyfawkes5
No, it will give them a copy of the HTML that forms the page.

The literal command he named just saves just the page's HTML.

Dano
Along with a folder containing the images...

Guyfawkes5
A 'save page as' command with a mention of nothing else should just save the textual mark-up of the page unless the command text is semantically incorrect.

Dj_Jestar
What "commands" are you talking about? Go to your file menu.. click on the "Save", "Save Page" or "Save as.." menu item (depending on what browser you are using) and look at what it saves by default.

Guyfawkes5
It's funny how I repeatedly advised you to look more closely at exactly what you're now asking me to do.

Yeah, have to agree with everyone else. However you decide your semantically correct naming convetions should work I'm afraid most major browser don't adhear to it:
http://filedump.whitesummitmedia.com/image-2012-05-16-at-03-52-20.jpg - All default options save images with HTML page

I think your misunderstanding of how the command "should" works extends from your knowledge of how they DO work. I think all the technically minded people would agree that a page may just be HTML but to 80% of the people using an internet browser when they hit "save page" they want to be able to double click on the file they saved and see the page in its entirety, images and all. Agreed that flash objects are an exception to this rule.

guyfawkes5 · 16 May 2012 at 16:59

Conceded that I was probably thinking more of less recent browsers when I disagreed with the initial simplistically described workflow to save the page.

I wouldn't say that it's a personal 'naming convention' to say that a webpage is just HTML though, to say 'Save a Webpage...' even with the '(complete)' suffix should lead to assumptions that all embedded media is included is still technically incorrect although I assume they left the terminology in for GUI continuity reasons.

On the subject of exceptions, I know you can embed media in certain ways even in HTML that it can't 'catch' either, at least in recent versions. As an aside, I wonder if it can even handle media distributed indirectly through something like <canvas>...

aln · 16 May 2012 at 17:53

RoyMi6 said:
Yeah, have to agree with everyone else. However you decide your semantically correct naming convetions should work I'm afraid most major browser don't adhear to it:
http://filedump.whitesummitmedia.com/image-2012-05-16-at-03-52-20.jpg - All default options save images with HTML page

I think your misunderstanding of how the command "should" works extends from your knowledge of how they DO work. I think all the technically minded people would agree that a page may just be HTML but to 80% of the people using an internet browser when they hit "save page" they want to be able to double click on the file they saved and see the page in its entirety, images and all. Agreed that flash objects are an exception to this rule.

The argument is pointless because it doesn't matter whether or not the technology obfuscates web viewable items, if you have a solution capable of viewing the media, you can just as easily turn that into a solution capable of saving the media.

Flash media, for example, makes itself difficult to save. This doesn't seem to make it difficult for a typical user to google "save flash video" and find a multitude of solutions which will achieve exactly that. You simply can't stop this with an open web platform.

Coming round full circle that takes us right back to the point that the solution the OP has is stupid because a) it doesn't work, and b) it's pretty annoying. He's free to stick with the solution, but the argument only serves to add confusion to point a, which isn't useful to the OP if he has a genuine need to protect his work.

RoyMi6 · 17 May 2012 at 10:53

Yeah, back on topic I'd have to say that the best long term solution for the OP is going to be something like WordPress with a plugin that can watermark images automatically.

That would give him both and easily manageable customers only section of his website as well photographs that are essentially useless rather than unobtainable.