Watermarking allowed? - DPChallenge Forums

01/29/2004 05:09:31 PM · #1

I see in the rules where Copyright notices are expressly forbidden. I also did a search for DigiMarc and found only 4 entries, none of which say whether a DigiMarc'd image is allowed or will be DQ'd. What's the official ruling on this type of edit. As I'm looking to do some commercial work I think $49 or 79 USD is a decent price to help secure some images but I don't want to apply this to any images if it'll make them DQ'able (or maybe I just don't want to submit any to a challenge if I've already watermarked 'em).

Thanks for the info.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/29/2004 05:17:22 PM · #2

DQ.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/29/2004 05:42:29 PM · #3

There is no "official ruling" that I know of, but I think it prudent to avoid submitting a watermarked image until you have one.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/29/2004 06:41:40 PM · #4

Originally posted by GeneralE:

There is no "official ruling" that I know of, but I think it prudent to avoid submitting a watermarked image until you have one.

It's not only prudent, but down right impossible!

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

01/29/2004 06:43:53 PM · #5

Unfortuantely, watermarking will make the photo identifible to who took the photo.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/29/2004 07:10:56 PM · #6

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no "official ruling" that I know of, but I think it prudent to avoid submitting a watermarked image until you have one.

It's not only prudent, but down right impossible!

Gordon made a funny! (For those who missed it, he was playing on the ambiguity of noun-pronoun connection in GeneralE's statement.)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/29/2004 09:52:39 PM · #7

Yes, one can be useful ....

The DigiMarc system applies what is supposed to be an invisible watermark, and so should not divulge the photographer's identity or show visible type (unless you download the image and "read" the watermark).

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/29/2004 10:58:46 PM · #8

I don't see why the DigiMarc system would be disallowed here, but I also don't see any net benefit for the photographer. After all, you pay DigiMarc for each image you watermark, and these are web-resolution images, not something that would be saleable... so why woudl you want ot pay toprotect something of little or no resale value?

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

01/29/2004 11:12:57 PM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If it can't be seen without uploading a special program then everybody should do use this program. I should be allowed then.

jab119

01/29/2004 11:16:59 PM · #10

from what I read on the Digimark some time back, if someone downloads you photo from your site, and then tried to pawn it off as their own on another web site, the digimark will know where your photos are at so you can search for your pics. and if some is using them you have much more leverage in getting them to stop displaying the image.

Things may have changed since I looked in to it a few years ago

James

nicklevy

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/29/2004 11:46:46 PM · #11

what is watermark or digimark?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/29/2004 11:55:42 PM · #12

The DigiMarc system is available within Photoshop, I think from version 5.0 onwards, under the Filters menu.

It does some kind of subtle pixel scrambling such that, with the proper software, the information can be extracted, but the changes are (supposedly) not visible to the naked eye.

I believe that you can apply a generic watermark to your image without registering, which will at least mark it as a copyrighted image, even if it doesn't provide a way to contact you. Registering confers additional options and a custom watermark, but is probably only suitable for actively professional photographers. There should be more info on the program available through the Photoshop Help system or the "About Plug-ins" section.

It probably should be legal, but as of now it isn't, so don't use it for entries. It might be interesting to upload versions with and without to see if people can tell the difference.

Message edited by author 2004-01-29 23:56:47.

01/30/2004 12:05:54 AM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

The benefit would be that if I license and image to someone and later find that said image or a very near likeness has been used in some unlicensed manner then I'd have some legal recourse (although this wasn't my original intent; I was just wondering what the ramificaitons were on DPC). This really has nothing to do with images that are "web resolution;" it has more to do with commercial stock photography which runs around 40mb per image if you sell through Corbis or Almay or some other stock agency. Since my initial goal is shooting weddings, senior and family portraits, events, etc and not commercial or artistic fare this doesn't seem a valuable product/service for me. So this was just something I wanted to consider the impact of before I go off throwing a couple of hundred at a company. It appears from what I've read on other sites that some professional photographers find this service useful and some don't need it. Sounds like it just really wouldn't fit the target market for which I'm shooting but anything like this is worth checking into; especially since DigiMarc lowered their prices recently.

Originally posted by jab119:

Actually DigiMarc sells 2 things that were of interest to me in finding out about this. The first is their digital watermark that is invisible to the eye but that creates a readable registration for an image. This price just got lowered to $79/5000 images. The service that they license now is an online image spider that crawls the net (especially high-traffic image stock photography sites like Corbis or Almay or whomever). If they find any of your images, they alert the site owner and they contact you and then you can work to start proceedings against whoever used your commercial work as their own. The spider is $299/year I think if you choose this level of subscription.

Message edited by author 2004-01-30 00:07:40.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/30/2004 12:09:01 AM · #14

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

...The first is their digital watermark that is invisible to the eye but that creates a readable registration for an image. This price just got lowered to $79/5000 images...

Now that's almost reasonable for anybody selling any images.

Catherine

Sony DSC-F717

01/30/2004 12:18:11 AM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

It's not only prudent, but down right impossible!

Laughed my ass off.

Heh.

Um, yeah.

No one can use an image at 72 dpi anyway. Why watermark it?

Catherine

Edited because I quoted the wrong message.
Edited again to add: Your best protection is your original, exif intact "negative", actually. Protecting images on the web is a fruitless task, really - none of the software work arounds actually work if someone wants it and if they get it and use it, your original file is your only real protection, anyway.

Message edited by author 2004-01-30 00:25:58.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/30/2004 12:23:22 AM · #16

Originally posted by Catherine:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no "official ruling" that I know of, but I think it prudent to avoid submitting a watermarked image until you have one.

Laughed my ass off.

Heh.

Um, yeah.

No one can use an image at 72 dpi anyway. Why watermark it?

Catherine

Well they can and have on the web. I have found [as have others here] found one of my shots and one of my drawings on peoples websites. Weird but they gave me credit. I just let it go. They weren't trying to rip me off to sell the shots, just post them on their sites.
Which of course is part of the problem the quaility is not good and makes you the artist look bad.

Message edited by author 2004-01-30 00:24:12.

Catherine

Sony DSC-F717

01/30/2004 12:32:33 AM · #17

Oh yes, people will take them on the web and use them on the web. I find two or three of mine every week - all over the place. But that's the _nature_ of the web - it's like the Scorpion and the Fox.

Your point is well taken - the only issue I care about is an improper presentation or alteration of my work so I look bad. I use a Creative Common License for all work on my site. I believe in an open web, though, so I might be in the minority. I don't put anything on the web I can't bear to lose.

Sorry if I sounded flippant - I quoted the wrong message originally and did not mean to imply that I was laughing at the suggestion of watermarking - I was laughing at Gordon's play on words/grammar.

Catherine

01/30/2004 12:34:07 AM · #18

Originally posted by Catherine:

Originally posted by Gordon:
It's not only prudent, but down right impossible!

Laughed my ass off.

Heh.

Um, yeah.

No one can use an image at 72 dpi anyway. Why watermark it?

Catherine

Edited because I quoted the wrong message.
Edited again to add: Your best protection is your original, exif intact "negative", actually. Protecting images on the web is a fruitless task, really - none of the software work arounds actually work if someone wants it and if they get it and use it, your original file is your only real protection, anyway.

Catherine,

I appreciate your view but apparently for some full-time photographers who shoot stock photos and for some agencies that I've looked into trying to sell through this is a valuable product/service. We're not talking about rinky-dink little 100k files. We're talking about heavily edited professional images that start around 40megabytes in size and that agencies only take via CD/DVD submission. I don't have the equipment to produce this yet but since I'm working on a 2nd career to retire into over the next 20 years I figure I'll start with smaller stuff and maybe someday work up into having a studio in the house after I retire from my first career (or is this 2nd) and make some extra money on the side so that I don't eat up all my pension/401(k) in a short time. To this end I'm checking out reasonable business situations such as learning to take and sell stock photos. With that knowledge I found that some agencies do use DigiMarc watermarking. My question on DPC was is it allowed or not. I understand that regardless of how I assume it can be broken or how some other photographer feels about it some people in the industry seem to be willing to pay to have photos created and I have received information from at least one of these agencies that they have used this service, had stolen photos found and that they prosecuted the offenders based on the DigiMarc data. That's good enough for me to say that for $79 USD I wonder how it would affect my submissions if I decided to put an action into PSCS that DigiMarc'd all my photos when it converted them to JPG or when it copyrighted them (which can be found in EXIF data.

Kevin

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/30/2004 12:41:44 AM · #19

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

...I wonder how it would affect my submissions if I decided to put an action into PSCS that DigiMarc'd all my photos when it converted them to JPG or when it copyrighted them (which can be found in EXIF data.

Kevin

For now I think it would still get them DQ'd. But we can take it up as a site suggestion as soon as we have a few other issues squared away ...

01/30/2004 12:45:59 AM · #20

Frankly, Paul, its not that so large an issue to me that I want to fight an uphill battle against ignorance. I just figured that since its invisible, doesn't affect the photo to the human eye and costs so little that I might as well find out what the situation is. I'm gonna take away from this that its a DQ and factor that into whether I want to invest any time with it.

I've even found some professional forums where people are still hung up on thinking its a visible watermark that can be seen even after other folks of their own ilk try to explain it. Arrggghhh!!
:)

Thanks for the info, tho.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/30/2004 12:48:42 AM · #21

I hope we can get you an answer soon!

01/30/2004 12:54:12 AM · #22

LOL.

No need.

I've just been watching a sick baby (ear infections and sinus problems) and checking back on several forums from time-to-time and what with the little sleep and comments I've gotten I think I needed that "Arrggghhh" for a second.

;)