insecure web designers and no right-click

[Una_Persson]

@mhendo

Hey, that never occurred to me.

Does physical ownership of the pictures give them any rights over them, apart from regular rights of possession? I mean, once they put them on a website, are they effectively saying to the world, “These are yours to do what you want with,” or do they retain any right to prevent copying?

I’m not quite sure of how this sort of thing works.

I’ve written thousands of words on this in GQ. Search on “Bridgeman” and “Corel” to see me rant. The short answer is, in the US at least, no, they are not able to create a new copyright with a slavishly copied public domain 2D artwork.

[mhendo]

@Una Persson

I’ve written thousands of words on this in GQ. Search on “Bridgeman” and “Corel” to see me rant. The short answer is, in the US at least, no, they are not able to create a new copyright with a slavishly copied public domain 2D artwork.

Sorry, it was badly phrased. I realise that they can’t actually create new copyright; what i was wondering is what rights, exactly, attached to physical possession of an out-of-copyright work?

I mean, if they owned the only existing copy of a particular picture, and if they didn’t post it on the web, then presumably they could deny everyone access to it. I’m assuming that their decision to put it on the web means that, being out of copyright, it is fair game for anyone to use?

[wolf_meister]

Well I was using Firefox and I used the right-click on that railroad site and sure enough I was able to save the “image” and when I went to open it, a blank page appeared. In a way I’m glad that the protection “worked”.

SO, I used view page source and was able to get to this page:
http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Tickets.html
where you can right-click and download what you want. I imagine other pages may be reached the same way.

[mhendo]

Never mind. I’ve now done a search for Bridgeman and Corel, and my curiosity is satisfied.

[CanvasShoes]

Thanks to those who provided links to examples. I hadn’t ever seen one of these before. Interesting though, like other posters already said, all you have to do is take a screen shot.

[Tuco]

It’s been a while since I used IE, but from what I can remember couldn’t you just hover the mouse cursor over an image and the little save/email/print icon appear in the top left corner? I remember getting round a lot of no right click sites using that.

[smiling_bandit]

Bit a hijack again here, but they may have more rights to the images than I thought. I was actually talking to them about it yesterday, and it seems they are doing reconstruction work on many of the pictures. That makes it a derivative image instead of a slavish reproduction. Of course, you can’t tell which one is which.

[aktep]

This is the page that set off this rant for me:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells_p.html

I don’t have firefox installed on the laptop, so I don’t know whether the NRC script will work on FF. The only place I’ve run into the problem on FF is on websites for a local TV station, where the NRC script prevents you from using the bugmenot extension on the login box.

[DocCathode]

@mhendo

Sorry, it was badly phrased. I realise that they can’t actually create new copyright; what i was wondering is what rights, exactly, attached to physical possession of an out-of-copyright work?

As their physical legal property, they can control access or reproduction of that original. They have no legal control over what is done with other copies. Note that ownership of a physical original does not grant copyright. If Slug Signorino gave me a portrait of me as a mad scientist, I would not have copyright of it. I couldn’t take photos or make other reproductions, exhibit the work for profit, etc. Slug retains those rights as holder of the copyright.

I mean, if they owned the only existing copy of a particular picture, and if they didn’t post it on the web, then presumably they could deny everyone access to it. I’m assuming that their decision to put it on the web means that, being out of copyright, it is fair game for anyone to use?

Anybody who can obtain a an accurate copy of the work that does not include new content can do whatever they want with it regardless of what the holder of the physical original wants. It’s fair game for anyone to use regardless of what the owner of the original wants. They have no copyright. If Slug were to magnanimously give his work to the world and place it in the public domain, anybody could copy, sell or his Cathode-Portrait Of A Nutcase. That I still own the original gives me no legal right to stop them. I have the right to stop people from photographing or reproducing the original because it is my physical property. But, if I put the image on the web, or they use the image printed in 2005, A Dope Odyssey, they have the legal right to make all the copies they want.

Back To The OP

I hate it only when the thing I want to copy is either public domain, or the clear property of a third party which the site reuses without permission.

[smiling_bandit]

Note that ownership of a physical original does not grant copyright.

Yes, a lot of people are confused by this, partly because the people who own the originals deliberately lie or are mistaken about it themselves. They often claim a copyright they don’t own.

[galt]

A trick I like is to figure out which HTML element has the right-click-eating code and disable it. On the Harry Potter page linked a few posts up, it’s done using the document.onmousedown handler, so if you type this into the address bar (in IE – something similar would probably work in netscape but it might not be exactly the same) and then hit enter:

javascript:document.onmousedown=null;document.innerHTML;

the onmousedown handler is removed and you can right-click images to your heart’s content.
(note: the “document.innerHTML;” at the end of the line is there because when you execute javascript from the address bar, IE replaces the window contents with the result of the script. This causes the result to be the HTML that makes up the current page, so basically nothing changes except the onmousedown handler.)

[Fear_Itself]

Here is a page from someone who is obsessed with justifying ‘no right click’:

http://www.brownielocks.com/stopcopying.html

[Fear_Itself]

And yet, she has the nerve to post this:

I will not give link credits to the sources for my midi files and (some) fonts. Why?

Before the Napster lawsuit, a lot of music was on-line; When I had time,
I’d surf around. When I found a good midi, I downloaded it and stored it for
potential use in the future. A lot of those sites are now gone; I
can’t give credit. Another reason is many tunes done in the same
arrangement are on more than one site

[Mr.Blue_Sky]

@Fear Itself

Here is a page from someone who is obsessed with justifying ‘no right click’:

http://www.brownielocks.com/stopcopying.html

“Is these code rude?”

Perhaps he needs to right click on some grammar lessons.

[galt]

I like the “How to Report an Internet Theft” section.

“Help! Someone stole my internet!”

[GorillaMan]

@Fear Itself

Here is a page from someone who is obsessed with justifying ‘no right click’:

http://www.brownielocks.com/stopcopying.html

Wow. Just wow. I wish that page was a joke, because it’d be damn funny to those of us that fret about genuine copyright problems.

[Cervaise]

@KJ

When the annoying Javascript window pops up, click the “OK” button by pressing the space bar. Release the right mouse button, and voila! Context menu!

I have to use a web-fronted application with right-click disabled for my job, and this trick will measurably improve the quality of my work life. Thank you very much.