>you can't save a picture on a website because the right-click

>what is print screen

>save page
>dig up the image from the saved version

File: tumblr_inline_mgtttkMdQa1qfe5t2.png (13KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x301px

>>58917195

1. There's a question of principle behind it.
2. If the picture is scaled down, you will get the scaled down picture.
3. If the picture has JPEG artifacts, you're going to get an original picture with JPEG artifacts + the compression added when you save it + the JPEG artifacts the website you publish it to adds if they convert it to JPEG.

What is wget

>>you can't save a picture on a website because the right-click menu is for an invisible element over it designed to stop you from copying the picture
That is easily circumvented.
>>you can't link to a picture because the server redirects to the picture's webpage
It is perfectly reasonable to not want people using your bandwidth. Host if yourself or reupload it to a hoster that allows it.

>>58917265
Or just save it as a PNG

>>58917323
>It is perfectly reasonable to not want people using your bandwidth. Host if yourself or reupload it to a hoster that allows it.
This doesn't make sense. You've already used their bandwidth or it wouldn't be able to display in your browser.

>>58917170
>hurrr what is developers tools
>what is view page source

>>58917354
OP was talking about hotlinking to the file on some other site so other people will download it, without going to the site itself.

In which case I suggested hosting it himself.

>>58917354
>This doesn't make sense. You've already used their bandwidth or it wouldn't be able to display in your browser.
If you display and share an image with a direct link, everyone who sees it still uses their bandwidth without actually seeing their site.

>>58917354
Stop giving me workarounds to this. I know the fucking workarounds. My point is they shouldn't be doing this in the first place, sperglords.

>>58917479
its there website they should do whatever they fucking want.

>>58917195
holy shit do you really use print screen to save an image?

just open up the browers's dev tools and select the image to get the .jpg link

File: 220px-Augustin-Louis_Cauchy_1901.jpg (15KB, 220x305px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x305px

>people trying to fight the nature of the system without changing the system
It's like adblockerblockers, it's windmill fighting.

>>58917479
the dude who gave you a solution doesn't have assburgers, I think you do for making this thread OP.

bandwidth costs money and some websites don't you want you leeching it. hard concept huh?

they also want you to visit their page directly so they can get ad revenue. they don't make any money from a remote client accessing their .jpg directly

>People who don't want to play by the Internet's rules
don't be such a retard.

>>58917195
Top kek or you could inspect the element.

Neo-/g/, you so crazy.

>F12
>Find image element in question
>Link directly to image
wow that was hard

>>58917170
Paranoid small business owners hate allowing people to save their images. I've had multiple clients demand that I prevent visitors from grabbing their pictures. It's fucking stupid because it doesn't actually prevent anyone from downloading the image really and in many ways it actually makes it harder for normalfags to browse the site.

>>58917170
>>you can't save a picture on a website because the right-click menu is for an invisible element over it designed to stop you from copying the picture
Just block the element covering the image with ublock.

>>58917170
>inspect source
>delete element blocking image
>right click
>save image

>>58917719
Why do they want to prevent people from saving their images anyway?

>>58917930
>>58917642

>>58917956
Saving ain't linking.

>>58917956
I get wanting to save bandwith, anon here is talking about small businesses not wanting their images copied by visitors. The post you linked to doesn't explain that. If you don't have an answer to my actual question, fuck off.

>>58917956
That's hotlinking, a completely different issue.

>>58917170
>People who don't want to play by the Internet's rules shouldn't be on the Internet in the first place.
/thread

>>58917930
They don't want competitors to steal their images and use them for their own sites, which is understandable (they sell trading card singles from Magic/Pokemon/etc.) However the solution to that is just a little watermark. Also most companies release official images anyways so there is little incentive for people to steal images from small time companies. They are just seeing complications where there aren't any.

>>58917195
That's how nigger tier memes filled with JPEG artifacts happen.

>can't copy or paste
>can't right click
Is there any extension that prevents this bullshit?

You always can save a pic using "page info" - "media".

Although this "right click" situation is indeed retarded.

>>58919452
I don't know about that, anon. I think those memes get passed around though a million meme aggregator sites who don't give a shit and compress them.

>>58919835
Nah. Every fucking normie takes a screenshot or even a picture of the screen instead of saving the maymay. It's obvious because they're often poorly cropped.

>>58919496
signed.applets.codebase_principal_support

Block referrers

>>58919496
about:config

dom.event.contextmenu.enabled = true

>>58919913
>normie
underage b&

>>58917170
F12 > Network > Img
woooooooooooow

>>58917170

Any time this has happened to me, I can hold shift while right-clicking to force the context menu, then there's either an option to save the image, or I use Inspect Element to get the link.

>>58917642
>bandwidth costs money and some websites don't you want you leeching it. hard concept huh?
This isn't a point because the image is already downloaded, and I'm sure their 5000 codes of shitty JS + dependancies to block the thing in the first place costs more to download and run than downloading the image twice, anyway.