需要研究、证明或研究表明图像复制保护不值得
我试图说服某人，图像复制保护（例如水印、javascript 禁止右键单击、空白图像覆盖等）不值得付出努力，因为即使是非技术用户也很容易绕过它们。
我还试图让他们相信，这些措施会惹恼客户，因为它会影响用户体验，并且对防止图像盗窃无济于事。归根结底，如果它出现在互联网上，公众和人们只要愿意就可以接受它。
因此，我正在寻找的是良好的研究、证明、研究，以及任何有数据支持这些措施前后销售、用户体验等下降的数据。
有什么想法吗？
I am trying to convince someone that image copy protection such as watermarks, javascript no right clicks, blank image overlays etc is not worth the effort since they are easily bypassed by even non-technical users.
I am also trying to convince them that these measures annoys customers as it impedes the user experience and does nothing to prevent image theft. At the end of the day if its on the internet, its public and people can take it if they want.
So what I'm looking for is a good study, proof, research, anything which has numbers to back up a fall in sales, user experience etc before and after these measures.
Any ideas?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
这可能不是您想听到的，但全尺寸水印（不仅仅是覆盖图形）是对图片的坚实保护。
其余的可以很容易解释：
That might not be what you wanna hear, but a full-size Watermark (not just a overlay-graphic) is a solid protection for pictures.
The rest can be easily explained:
不，不会——从什么时候开始，正确定位的透明覆盖层会妨碍用户体验？
它是公开可见的，但不是他们可以拿走的。这些图像受版权保护，并受版权法和国际条约的约束。
是的，这是正确的，但这些措施将避免大多数不精明的用户保存图像，它不会阻止真正想要它们的人。
问题不在于人们保存图像，因为您通过在网络上显示图像（浏览器将图像下载到缓存然后显示）来隐式授予他们该权限。真正的问题是人们在未经许可的情况下非法使用图像，这是非常难以阻止的。有充分的理由采取合理的措施来保护您的图像，如果您可以阻止不那么聪明的用户这样做，那么您就可以避免一些头痛。对于那些坚持重复使用您的图像的人来说，只有直接的法律行动才能保证有效，因为对 ISP 的威胁和投诉可能是一件非常偶然的事情。因此，如果您可以通过使用离散但有效的水印、混淆图像来源并干扰用户右键单击和保存的能力来搞乱事情，那么就这样做吧。
但话虽如此，当谷歌索引你的图像并在用户进行图像搜索时显示它们时，这并没有多大帮助。
No it doesn't - since when does a properly positioned transparent overlay impede the user experience?
It's publicly viewable, but it is not theirs to just take. The images are copyright, and subject to copyright laws and international treaties.
Yes this is correct, but those measures will avoid the majority of non-savvy users saving images, it won't stop the people who really want them.
The issue is not with people saving the images, because you have implicitly given them that permission by displaying it on the net (browsers download the image to a cache and then show it). The real issue is people using images illegally, without permission, which is incredibly hard to stop. There is every reason to take reasonable steps to protect your images, if you can stop the not-so-smart users doing it, then you've saved yourself a bit of a headache. For the people who insist on re-using your images, only direct legal action will work with any surety, as threats and complaints to ISPs can be a very hit and miss affair. So if you can mess things up by using discrete but effective watermarks, and obfuscating the source of the image and intefering with the user's ability to right click and save then do it.
But having said that, it's not going to help much when Google indexes your images and displays them when a user does an image search.
您可以呈现以下内容：
PrtScrn - 即使右键单击被阻止，用户仍然可以打印屏幕并在 Paint 中剪切图像
修饰 - 甚至如果图片上有水印，任何阅读过有关修饰照片的基本 Photoshop/其他图形编辑软件教程的用户都可以轻松将其删除。
但最后，我认为防止盗窃的最佳保护措施是实际获得图像许可，如果您发现或收到通知有人在未经您同意的情况下使用了它，我认为您有所有的论据来反对他。如果用户将其保存在他的“文档”文件夹中，您就不能责怪 - 这就像您分发 1000 张传单，然后起诉人们将它们放在家里的抽屉里，因为它使用了您的照片。
You could present the following:
PrtScrn - even if the right click is prevented the user can still do a print screen of the print screen and cutout the image in Paint
Retouching - even if the watermarek was on the picture it can be easly removed by any user who has read a basic photoshop/other graphic editing software tutorial on retouching photos.
But in the end I think that the best protection against theft is to actually have the image licensed and if you spot or get notified that someone used it without your premission I think you have all the arguments to go against him. You can't blame if the user saves it in his Documents folder - it same as if you hand out 1000 flyers and than sue people for having them in the drawer at home since it uses your picture.