image protection

"Gary White" <reply (AT) newsgroup (DOT) please> wrote

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:16:29 -0400, "Murray *ACE*"
forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote:

Actually, it would make your site completely opaque to search engines, no?
8)

Hmmm ... If something is transparent, you cannot see it, right? If it
were opaque, you could see it. ;-)

But doesn't 'transparent' usually refer to something that you're looking
*through*? I understand how you came up with 'transparent', but I think you
kinda mean 'invisible'. :-) I'm just having fun with words, though -
either way I understand your meaning:

Perhaps stating it this way will provide less ambiguity. If you use
that "encryption" scheme, search engines will not see anything in your
site and web searches will never find your site.

Gary

Cheers,


--
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
--

So "transparent" should read sometiung like "invisible" in the context of
this thread?

:-)

--
Regards

John Waller

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:37:43 -0400, "Murray *ACE*"
<forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote:

I look at it this way - if it's transparent you can see INTO it. If it's
opaque you're screwed. But that's just me. 8)

But if the whole site is transparent, you cannot see anything. ;-)

Gary

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:01:17 -0400, "P@tty Ayers ~ACE"
<signup1REMOVE (AT) ayersvirtualREMOVE (DOT) com> wrote:

But doesn't 'transparent' usually refer to something that you're looking
*through*? I understand how you came up with 'transparent', but I think you
kinda mean 'invisible'. :-) I'm just having fun with words, though -
either way I understand your meaning:

Yeah, we do get kind of anal about linguistics, don't we. :-)

Gary

"Murray *ACE*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote:

I look at it this way - if it's transparent you can see INTO it. If it's
opaque you're screwed. But that's just me. 8)

But if something is truly transparent you can't see it either. So maybe you
were right the first time!


Clancy

"Karlhevera" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote:

Thanks, guys.... will inform the copyright holder accordingly...
Karl

If they really want to stop anybody pinching pictures from their web site they
can mess them up, by printing copyright all over them. But then I suspect they
will find that nobody buys their pictures either.

If they don't put anything bigger than about 1000 pixels on their web site the
images will be good enough to evaluate their work, but not big enough to make a
decent print, so if anybody does want a good print they should be prepared to
pay your client for a high resolution one.

Clancy

:-)) The copyright owner agreed with me. I got a low res image with small copyright text at bottom right. Looks OK, though. Agree, not good enough to print, but OK on the page...