| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2004 08:52:32 AM · #26 |
Is it actually invisible ? My understanding is it manipulates the low order bits in each pixel to add the watermark as additional noise. This means if the shot is manipulated/ resized etc the watermark remains.
You can choose how robust the protection is - more noise = a more robust mark - less apparent noise, a more easily damanged or removed watermark.
Curious to know how visible those pertubations on the low order bits are for a reasonable level of protection, particularly in a small image file.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2004 09:06:06 AM · #27 |
As a follow-up, I just tried this out on a few web sized images - it adds quite a lot of visible noise, and it is pretty trivial to remove/ damage by some basic filtering steps, without damaging the image. Might be worth looking in to it some more before laying out money for it.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2011 12:39:33 AM · #28 |
So after 7 years, at the end of the day, is it legal or not?
Has the technology progressed to the point of being useful, invisible or not. |
|
|
|
09/04/2011 09:00:29 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
So after 7 years, at the end of the day, is it legal or not?
Has the technology progressed to the point of being useful, invisible or not. |
If someone used it, no one would be likely to know, including the SC. It might get comments about excess noise. It would almost certainly pass a DQ review, because there are no visible, recognizable shapes created.
As for being useful, sure, it was useful in 2004 if you didn't mind added noise, and if the person misappropriating an image didn't modify the image (the information can be pretty easily removed, without changing the image substantially). Most images that are stolen are used in their native form, so perhaps this is a good assumption. But it does assume that someone will find and question the image, and look for the information, which is a *huge* assumption. In the end, I think that image search technology like tineye is more valuable, since it directly identifies usage of a specific image. I see that Digimarc is still in business, and still selling the technology as a protective measure, but they seem to be more focused on embedding information for other reasons (so-called enriched media). |
|
|
|
09/04/2011 06:52:03 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
So after 7 years, at the end of the day, is it legal or not?
Has the technology progressed to the point of being useful, invisible or not. |
If someone used it, no one would be likely to know, including the SC. It might get comments about excess noise. It would almost certainly pass a DQ review, because there are no visible, recognizable shapes created.
As for being useful, sure, it was useful in 2004 if you didn't mind added noise, and if the person misappropriating an image didn't modify the image (the information can be pretty easily removed, without changing the image substantially). Most images that are stolen are used in their native form, so perhaps this is a good assumption. But it does assume that someone will find and question the image, and look for the information, which is a *huge* assumption. In the end, I think that image search technology like tineye is more valuable, since it directly identifies usage of a specific image. I see that Digimarc is still in business, and still selling the technology as a protective measure, but they seem to be more focused on embedding information for other reasons (so-called enriched media). |
Okay thanks. Digimarc claims to have a crawler based search agent that will find images you watermark and report back to you. Don't know how well it works though.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2011 07:29:15 PM · #31 |
| Dang, for a second there I thought Gordon had returned. |
|
|
|
09/04/2011 08:28:25 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Dang, for a second there I thought Gordon had returned. |
What am I, chopped liver? |
|
|
|
09/04/2011 08:50:54 PM · #33 |
I have no idea. You don't have the  Gordon profile. |
|
|
|
09/04/2011 11:35:51 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I have no idea. You don't have the Gordon profile. |
Gordon's so 16-months-ago. |
|
|
|
09/05/2011 10:53:50 AM · #35 |
| Gordon has 6 ribbons, 2 are BLUE. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:34:15 PM EDT.
