Hi Daniel. Although this could
be technically possible to achieve, it's not productive and I fail to see any value.
Hi, it is possible to hide path/link to photo(s) on windows browsers. Or change path/link to one other. This for disable the possibility for somebody to Copy/Paste this direct link to one or some photos. ?
I'm not quite sure what you mean "direct link to one or more photos". /photos/my_photo_one is NOT a direct link to an image, but would represent an image that is located at /content/photos/my_photo_one.jpg. X3 does not show direct links, although it shows URL's that are symmetric with an image path. Below is a link to an X3 image landing page:
If the visitor is technically advanced, they could use browser inspector to figure out the path to the image from that with the /content/ folder applied.
If they already know how to use browser inspector (or in any way figure out the "content" path segment), they also know that all images will load into browser from the "network" tab, and can easily be accessed no matter what URL you use:
First of all, I don't see what difference it makes with /photos/my_photo_one vs just /my_photo_one. NEITHER of those url's represent the PATH to the image, and are just virtual url's. Even with the original url /photos/my_photo_one, the user would still need to figure out the image path to be /content/photos/my_photo_one.jpg. If they can already do that, what makes you think it will be more complicated by simply removing the parent folder segment? The user can still find the direct image link by checking the files that load into browser, regardless of what path you use.
Perhaps more important in regards to this example, is that URL's need to represent a way for any application to identify and load a resource. If you use /my_photo_one instead of /photos/my_photo_one, how would X3 know where to look for the data to load for the page if it doesn't know that my_photo_one is in the /photos/ dir? What if you have /folder1/my_photo_one.jpg and /folder2/my_photo_one.jpg? It's not a technically feasible solution, even if it did provide additional obscurity.
Same as above. Also, with this specific solution, you would be entirely disabling SEO (search engine optimzation) and any possibility to link to specific pages on your website.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to block images from users who are advanced enough to use any browser network inspector. For those who are NOT advanced enough to use network inspector, what difference does it make if the url is /photos/my_photo_one or just /my_photo_one? None of those url's represent the path to the image.
As of my 15 years working with image galleries, the only way to truly block abuse of images uploaded to a website is by 1) Watermarking images, and/or 2) Using not-high-enough resolutions for unauthorized downloads to cause concern. You can block non-advanced users from downloading images by using "block image downloads" in X3 Settings > Advanced, which simply prevents right-click downloads.