Digimarc… The Great Illusion

MA
Posted By
mohamed_al_dabbagh
Nov 23, 2004
Views
601
Replies
16
Status
Closed
Hi All!

It seems that a number of people really believed that watermarking will solve their copyright problems in a rather prestigious way. Today I post to say: it is a real illusion. I have been provoked by some postings about Digimarc plug-in that ships with Photoshop. After a number of trials I could arrive at a standard procedure that will turn watermarking into a useless illusion. I have corresponded with a couple of Digimarc employees, who show a strange attitude, by trying to convince me that what I’ve discovered is normal and they expect it!

To prove that watermarking is nothing but a superficial luxury feature, I have put THREE watermarks in the same picture. It wasn’t done by chance. Take a look here:

http://odin.prohosting.com/digimarc

Right-click the picture and save it on your computer. Open it with Photoshop:

1- The initial resolution is 72 DPI. Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1950).

2- Resample by Image>Image Size>150 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1985)!!

3- Resample by Image>Image Size>200 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 2000)!!!!

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

C
Corey
Nov 24, 2004
If you’re concerned about copyrighting your images, it may be best to just submit them to the Copyright Office. From my understanding, any work is automatically copyrighted at the point of creation or when it becomes a tangible piece of work. That is when it is saved on your computer, written or drawn by hand, saved to a disc, recorded onto a tape or CD, etc. You can’t copyright an idea. So as long as you have the original, and especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s properties, it’s quite easy to prove ownership. It’s just that our court system can be quite nasty.

Interesting links:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

http://www.vippa.com/Articles/articles.html which states:

"There is a very powerful, yet little known tool available to photographers that allows you to deal swiftly and decisively with image piracy on the internet when the offender won’t compensate for use of the images and also refuses to remove them from the web site: it’s called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Enacted in 1998 the DMCA, as it is commonly called, allows you, the photographer, without involving an attorney or incurring other legal expenses, to force the offender to remove your images within 24 to 48 hours or have their entire web site disabled. For instance, if they don’t remove the images in the prescribed time frame anyone trying to access the site will get a message something to the effect: This site is not available "

And the US Copyright Office:
http://www.copyright.gov/

Peadge 🙂

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
Hi All!

It seems that a number of people really believed that watermarking will solve their copyright problems in a rather prestigious way. Today I post to say: it is a real illusion. I have been provoked by some postings about Digimarc plug-in that ships with Photoshop. After a number of trials I could arrive at a standard procedure that will turn watermarking into a useless illusion. I have corresponded with a couple of Digimarc employees, who show a strange attitude, by trying to convince me that what I’ve discovered is normal and they expect it!
To prove that watermarking is nothing but a superficial luxury feature, I have put THREE watermarks in the same picture. It wasn’t done by chance. Take a look here:

http://odin.prohosting.com/digimarc

Right-click the picture and save it on your computer. Open it with Photoshop:

1- The initial resolution is 72 DPI. Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1950).

2- Resample by Image>Image Size>150 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1985)!!
3- Resample by Image>Image Size>200 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 2000)!!!!

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
J
jjs
Nov 24, 2004
"Peadge" wrote in message
If you’re concerned about copyrighting your images, it may be best to just submit them to the Copyright Office.

Sure, but you are drifting off the the topic, which is Digimarc’s claim.

[…] So as long as you have the original, and
especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s properties, it’s quite easy to prove ownership.

Now that is just so incorrect. Think it over.
C
Corey
Nov 24, 2004
"jjs" wrote in message
"Peadge" wrote in message
If you’re concerned about copyrighting your images, it may be best to
just
submit them to the Copyright Office.

Sure, but you are drifting off the the topic, which is Digimarc’s claim.

The OP mentioned "copyright problems." Perhaps my field of vision is a little wider, but I see not only a relationship, but a solution to his "root" problem. Note also that he mentions no instance of the copyright being changed to an EARLIER date through alteration in Photoshop. All dates show the original embedded one or later.

[…] So as long as you have the original, and
especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s
properties,
it’s quite easy to prove ownership.

Now that is just so incorrect. Think it over.

If I create a graphics file, and especially if I have it in layers and at a higher resolution, the properties will show the created, modified, and last accessed dates. But if I copy an image off the web and save it, the properties will merely state the date the image was copied from the Internet, not the date it was created. So if I created an image five years ago and put it on the Web, and you copied it and posted it to your site without my permission, I will own the file with the earliest date.

Please explain your perspective. Perhaps you are concerned with the word "easy."

Peadge 🙂
J
jjs
Nov 24, 2004
"Peadge" wrote in message

Sure, but you are drifting off the the topic, which is Digimarc’s claim.

The OP mentioned "copyright problems." Perhaps my field of vision is a little wider, but I see not only a relationship, but a solution to his "root" problem. Note also that he mentions no instance of the copyright being changed to an EARLIER date through alteration in Photoshop. All dates
show the original embedded one or later.

I managed to change his example to copyright 1946.

[…] So as long as you have the original, and
especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s
properties,
it’s quite easy to prove ownership.

Now that is just so incorrect. Think it over.

If I create a graphics file, and especially if I have it in layers and at a
higher resolution, the properties will show the created, modified, and last
accessed dates. But if I copy an image off the web and save it, the properties will merely state the date the image was copied from the Internet, not the date it was created. So if I created an image five years ago and put it on the Web, and you copied it and posted it to your site without my permission, I will own the file with the earliest date.

That might work, but not due to the file-system dates, but because you can show a full resolution, multiple layer version which probably cannot be recapitulated through the web version.

Please explain your perspective. Perhaps you are concerned with the word "easy."

I was thinking about my own line of work: photography. A large enough web B&W, for example, can be copied rather easily. My only hope is that the original negative, with adjacent or same-time versions (possibly brackets) will verify it’s originality – as long as I have not at one point declared the work Public Domain – which I have done once. The picture was copied by a painter. Funny, isn’t it?
J
jjs
Nov 24, 2004
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
[…]
To prove that watermarking is nothing but a superficial luxury feature, I have put THREE watermarks in the same picture. It wasn’t done by chance. Take a look here:

http://odin.prohosting.com/digimarc

Interesting! I did not spend much time on it, but I did downsample your picture and changed the copyright to 1946 using Digimark. (PS/CS) http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/me3marcs.jpg
C
Corey
Nov 24, 2004
I guess all I’m saying is don’t expect Digimarc to replace diligent Copyright submission.

How did you get the Digimarc date to show earlier than 1950? I tried reducing the resolution several times to several values but the copyright stayed at 1950. I did manage to make it unreadable.

For your line of work, what might come in handy is to slightly crop images that are displayed on the web or even for hi-res print. You would be the only person with the uncropped version, should a dispute arise.

In any event, copyright automatically occurs at the time of creation. Ensuring the ability to prove ownership would be a prudent step.

Peadge 🙂

"jjs" wrote in message
"Peadge" wrote in message

Sure, but you are drifting off the the topic, which is Digimarc’s
claim.
The OP mentioned "copyright problems." Perhaps my field of vision is a little wider, but I see not only a relationship, but a solution to his "root" problem. Note also that he mentions no instance of the copyright being changed to an EARLIER date through alteration in Photoshop. All dates
show the original embedded one or later.

I managed to change his example to copyright 1946.

[…] So as long as you have the original, and
especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s
properties,
it’s quite easy to prove ownership.

Now that is just so incorrect. Think it over.

If I create a graphics file, and especially if I have it in layers and
at
a
higher resolution, the properties will show the created, modified, and last
accessed dates. But if I copy an image off the web and save it, the properties will merely state the date the image was copied from the Internet, not the date it was created. So if I created an image five
years
ago and put it on the Web, and you copied it and posted it to your site without my permission, I will own the file with the earliest date.

That might work, but not due to the file-system dates, but because you can show a full resolution, multiple layer version which probably cannot be recapitulated through the web version.

Please explain your perspective. Perhaps you are concerned with the
word
"easy."

I was thinking about my own line of work: photography. A large enough web B&W, for example, can be copied rather easily. My only hope is that the original negative, with adjacent or same-time versions (possibly brackets) will verify it’s originality – as long as I have not at one point declared the work Public Domain – which I have done once. The picture was copied by
a
painter. Funny, isn’t it?

F
Frank ess
Nov 24, 2004
jjs wrote:
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
[…]
To prove that watermarking is nothing but a superficial luxury feature, I have put THREE watermarks in the same picture. It wasn’t done by chance. Take a look here:

http://odin.prohosting.com/digimarc

Interesting! I did not spend much time on it, but I did downsample your picture and changed the copyright to 1946 using Digimark. (PS/CS) http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/me3marcs.jpg

My dense gene suddenly dominates: I can’t understand the OP’s point, if it is not:
"Digimark marking displays whatever you want it to display."

Does it mean that Digimarked material can have the mark changed from original, leaving no trace, and can then be re-marked with whatever you’d like?

That _is_ a problem for Digimark, if they maintain they can track down your marked photos and report transgressors to you, and the marks are easily transformed, they have no ground to stand on.

From the first time I ever saw and (I thought) understood Digimark’s plan, I expected that a serious thief would either disregard or disable it, eventually. I have more confidence in reactive technology than in inventive technology, in that kind of arena.

For my part, I take advantage of the freebie part of the service: I have a dozen or so marked images out there (last I looked the first 100 are free). In the six or more years since floating the first one, I’ve had two people contact me because of the embedded information they could call up in Photo Shop, and one actually bought a license for limited use of a picture. So far, I am up by the amount of that fee.

I view the search-and-report service as too expensive for an operation at my scale.

Underlying it all is a presumption that the status of competition between copyright holders and rippers-off will change from moment to moment. Somewhere there is a place where the cost and benefit curves cross, and it’s moving away from me…

— Frank ess
S
Scruff
Nov 24, 2004
"Peadge" wrote in message
I guess all I’m saying is don’t expect Digimarc to replace diligent Copyright submission.

How did you get the Digimarc date to show earlier than 1950? I tried reducing the resolution several times to several values but the copyright stayed at 1950. I did manage to make it unreadable.

For your line of work, what might come in handy is to slightly crop images that are displayed on the web or even for hi-res print. You would be the only person with the uncropped version, should a dispute arise.
In any event, copyright automatically occurs at the time of creation. Ensuring the ability to prove ownership would be a prudent step.
Peadge 🙂
Digimarc’s only claim to fame is that it will help identify something someone digitally watermarked. Proving that it is actually yours and when it was actually created is the responsibility of the person who watermarked it. I don’t really think they claim anything more than that.
C
Corey
Nov 24, 2004
"Scruff" wrote in message
"Peadge" wrote in message
I guess all I’m saying is don’t expect Digimarc to replace diligent Copyright submission.

How did you get the Digimarc date to show earlier than 1950? I tried reducing the resolution several times to several values but the
copyright
stayed at 1950. I did manage to make it unreadable.

For your line of work, what might come in handy is to slightly crop
images
that are displayed on the web or even for hi-res print. You would be the only person with the uncropped version, should a dispute arise.
In any event, copyright automatically occurs at the time of creation. Ensuring the ability to prove ownership would be a prudent step.
Peadge 🙂
Digimarc’s only claim to fame is that it will help identify something someone digitally watermarked. Proving that it is actually yours and when
it
was actually created is the responsibility of the person who watermarked
it.
I don’t really think they claim anything more than that.
And they also offer the Tracking service of searching the Web for them, which is pretty cool and time saving!

Peadge 🙂
J
jjs
Nov 24, 2004
"Frank ess" wrote in message

My dense gene suddenly dominates: I can’t understand the OP’s point, if it is not:
"Digimark marking displays whatever you want it to display."
Does it mean that Digimarked material can have the mark changed from original, leaving no trace, and can then be re-marked with whatever you’d like?

Looks that way.
S
Stephan
Nov 24, 2004
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
Hi All!

It seems that a number of people really believed that watermarking will solve their copyright problems in a rather prestigious way. Today I post to say: it is a real illusion. I have been provoked by some postings about Digimarc plug-in that ships with Photoshop. After a number of trials I could arrive at a standard procedure that will turn watermarking into a useless illusion. I have corresponded with a couple of Digimarc employees, who show a strange attitude, by trying to convince me that what I’ve discovered is normal and they expect it!
To prove that watermarking is nothing but a superficial luxury feature, I have put THREE watermarks in the same picture. It wasn’t done by chance. Take a look here:

http://odin.prohosting.com/digimarc

Right-click the picture and save it on your computer. Open it with Photoshop:

1- The initial resolution is 72 DPI. Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1950).

2- Resample by Image>Image Size>150 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 1985)!!
3- Resample by Image>Image Size>200 DPI (Bicubic). Filter>Digimarc>Read Watermark (you’ll get year 2000)!!!!

Mohamed,
You need a bigger monitor!
😉

Stephan
MA
mohamed_al_dabbagh
Nov 25, 2004
Hi All!

To be fair in judging if Digimarc watermarking system is great or not, we should sometimes be involved in copyright system. In reality, for copyright system to succeed there are two main elements: Moral and Material. Moral is copyright law, and, of course, the honest men who will always preserve the intellectual rights of the others and never infringe them. Material is to implement the punishments stated by the copyright law in case of infringement and requires police and fines! Taking into consideration that Digimarc falls in the first part only of the equation, it is supposed to constitute (at least) a poorly locked door in the face of copyright violators. This is not happening in our case!

When I made this example of embedding three watermarks in the same image (using Digimarc watermarks), I meant that all people should understand that this technology has something wrong, and, the Digimarc Corporation should take measures to tell the loyal clients that they are not standing still, and that the amounts paid by the clients should actually be appreciated, and that they are not selling mirage to people, or else, this will be construed as fraudulent act! I, also, didn’t disclose the STANDARD procedure by which I embedded all these watermarks, to make things little bit harder to the people who make use of the wrong side of the information sword!

Removing Digimarc original watermarks, using a standard procedure makes it easy to implement to further remove watermarks from videos and sounds, in batch processing.

By the way, I have sent the embedding procedure to Digimarc before I even publish this, and informed them that their legal department should now include the following in the EULA: The owner hereby agrees that Digimarc watermarks embedded in his images, and sold by the virtue of this agreement, could EASILY be removed or changed by a relatively simple procedure, and virtually by anyone, with a minimal loss of image quality.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
S
Scruff
Nov 25, 2004
Sounds like you’re on top of it.

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
Hi All!

To be fair in judging if Digimarc watermarking system is great or not, we should sometimes be involved in copyright system. In reality, for copyright system to succeed there are two main elements: Moral and Material. Moral is copyright law, and, of course, the honest men who will always preserve the intellectual rights of the others and never infringe them. Material is to implement the punishments stated by the copyright law in case of infringement and requires police and fines! Taking into consideration that Digimarc falls in the first part only of the equation, it is supposed to constitute (at least) a poorly locked door in the face of copyright violators. This is not happening in our case!

When I made this example of embedding three watermarks in the same image (using Digimarc watermarks), I meant that all people should understand that this technology has something wrong, and, the Digimarc Corporation should take measures to tell the loyal clients that they are not standing still, and that the amounts paid by the clients should actually be appreciated, and that they are not selling mirage to people, or else, this will be construed as fraudulent act! I, also, didn’t disclose the STANDARD procedure by which I embedded all these watermarks, to make things little bit harder to the people who make use of the wrong side of the information sword!

Removing Digimarc original watermarks, using a standard procedure makes it easy to implement to further remove watermarks from videos and sounds, in batch processing.

By the way, I have sent the embedding procedure to Digimarc before I even publish this, and informed them that their legal department should now include the following in the EULA: The owner hereby agrees that Digimarc watermarks embedded in his images, and sold by the virtue of this agreement, could EASILY be removed or changed by a relatively simple procedure, and virtually by anyone, with a minimal loss of image quality.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
R
Rick
Nov 26, 2004
"Peadge"

| If you’re concerned about copyrighting your images, it may be best to just | submit them to the Copyright Office. From my understanding, any work is | automatically copyrighted at the point of creation or when it becomes a | tangible piece of work. That is when it is saved on your computer, written | or drawn by hand, saved to a disc, recorded onto a tape or CD, etc. You | can’t copyright an idea. So as long as you have the original, and | especially if it’s a computer file with creation dates in it’s properties, | it’s quite easy to prove ownership. It’s just that our court system can be
| quite nasty.

If the work is not published the protection is weak unless the copy right if officially registered. As example you can stop someone from using the work but you cannot obtain monetary damages with out the registration.
H
Hecate
Nov 26, 2004
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:39:18 -0500, "Not Me" wrote:

If the work is not published the protection is weak unless the copy right if officially registered. As example you can stop someone from using the work but you cannot obtain monetary damages with out the registration.
Copyright, unlike patents, do not need to be registered. They are covered by the Berne Convention. If someone steals something I have created I only have to go to court and prove that I created it, and that the image was stolen. I will then receive damages commensurate with the damage caused by the theft. At least, that’s how copyright works in the rest of the world, I can’t speak for the US.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
C
Corey
Nov 26, 2004
"Not Me" wrote in message

If the work is not published the protection is weak unless the copy right
if
officially registered. As example you can stop someone from using the
work
but you cannot obtain monetary damages with out the registration.

I don’t think copyright laws really care if the work has been published or not. Otherwise, people could just steal other people’s work before it was published and call it their own. Being published may play a roll in determining the amount of the fine levied against the thief, but it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the copyright protection. Any weakness would be in the ability to prove ownership.

Peadge 🙂

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections