It's self-defeating because it degrades the quality of your site, it's self-defeating because it blocks some user behaviors for discussing your site, and it doesn't work. Rule of thumb: if you don't want something shared, don't put it on the internet.
There are a few reasonable exceptions. Stock photo sites should probably use watermarks and reduced-size images. Unobtrusively signing images sometimes also makes sense (not watermarking) as it can serve branding interests.
But trying to block browser interactions is just annoying. Don't do that, it's a great big sin against usability that violates the rule of least surprise. If it's over-done, it may keep me from easily opening links in a new tab. It also makes it hard to open images in a new tab if I'm trying to get a better look at them on a limited display.
While I sympathise with OP's frustration at others making money from their work - there is provision in UK copyright law: "using any work, for the purpose of reporting current events, with sufficient acknowledgement, is a valid exception to copyright".
5 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] threadThis part isn't such an awesome idea.
There are a few reasonable exceptions. Stock photo sites should probably use watermarks and reduced-size images. Unobtrusively signing images sometimes also makes sense (not watermarking) as it can serve branding interests.
But trying to block browser interactions is just annoying. Don't do that, it's a great big sin against usability that violates the rule of least surprise. If it's over-done, it may keep me from easily opening links in a new tab. It also makes it hard to open images in a new tab if I'm trying to get a better look at them on a limited display.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_...