We occasionally need to publish images whose author needs to protect
them carefully (for example, an artist who is allowing us to use their
images) and who would not want them to be copied from our site and used
elsewhere.

How can we best protect these? I can think of a number of ways:

*       Copyright and authorship information in Exif metadata
*       Copyright and authorship information in adjacent HTML
*       Visible digital watermarking (bleugh)
*       Invisible digital watermarking

Is there anything that can be (relatively easily) placed into an image,
that can be looked for in a web search, to find copies of the image on
other sites?

Thanks for any advice.

Daniele
-- 
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance 
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

        <http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658>

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1iv3o90.1k9eo5vg9cysvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
: We occasionally need to publish images whose author needs to protect
: them carefully (for example, an artist who is allowing us to use 
their
: images) and who would not want them to be copied from our site and 
used
: elsewhere.
:
: How can we best protect these? I can think of a number of ways:
:
: *       Copyright and authorship information in Exif metadata
: *       Copyright and authorship information in adjacent HTML
: *       Visible digital watermarking (bleugh)
: *       Invisible digital watermarking
:
: Is there anything that can be (relatively easily) placed into an 
image,
: that can be looked for in a web search, to find copies of the image 
on
: other sites?
:

How are you going to stop people doing a screen capture (or similar) 
and thus obtaining an unprotected full sized version of the image, or 
in the case of metadata, just remove/rewrite it - about the only way 
any image can be protected is to either put a ruddy great water-mark 
on the *visible* image or not to place the image on the web in the 
first place!

For casual image protection the best method IMO is to load the image 
as a background and then place a 1px transparent .gif over the top in 
place of the normal image, if one couples this with either a visible 
water mark or a low res image it will be enough to put off all but the 
most determined. Obviously there are accessibility issues, one has to 
decide how far one complies with the accessibility issues...
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:

> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
> message 
> news:1iv3o90.1k9eo5vg9cysvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...

> > We occasionally need to publish images whose author needs to protect
> > them carefully (for example, an artist who is allowing us to use their
> > images) and who would not want them to be copied from our site and used
> > elsewhere.

> How are you going to stop people doing a screen capture (or similar) 
> and thus obtaining an unprotected full sized version of the image, 

Why would they need to a screen capture? They could just drag the image
from the browser to their desktop/Photoshop/whatever in the normal way.

That's not something you can prevent. I'm just looking for ways to
protect web-published images, not unbreachable defenses.

Noting "Copyright John Smith" next to the image is adequate protection,
but one doesn't always want copyright notices all over the place. 

Something in the image or its metadata that would be found with a web
search would help find instances of unauthorised borrowings - if that's
even possible.

Daniele
-- 
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance 
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

        <http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658>

In article 
<1iv3o90.1k9eo5vg9cysvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
 real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

> We occasionally need to publish images whose author needs to protect
> them carefully (for example, an artist who is allowing us to use their
> images) and who would not want them to be copied from our site and used
> elsewhere.
> 
> How can we best protect these? I can think of a number of ways:
> 
> *       Copyright and authorship information in Exif metadata
> *       Copyright and authorship information in adjacent HTML
> *       Visible digital watermarking (bleugh)
> *       Invisible digital watermarking
> 
> Is there anything that can be (relatively easily) placed into an image,
> that can be looked for in a web search, to find copies of the image on
> other sites?
> 

You cannot stop all people getting screen shots and changing the name of 
the result (making theirs unfindable really...). You can desist from 
making really high quality or big images freely available. Watermarks do 
often make the results more troublesome to steal because of the bother 
of having to remove them.

-- 
dorayme

In article 
<1iv3qt0.r09tn113lj35kN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
 real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

> Jerry <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> > "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
> > message 
> > news:1iv3o90.1k9eo5vg9cysvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> 
> > > We occasionally need to publish images whose author needs to protect
> > > them carefully (for example, an artist who is allowing us to use their
> > > images) and who would not want them to be copied from our site and used
> > > elsewhere.
> 
> > How are you going to stop people doing a screen capture (or similar) 
> > and thus obtaining an unprotected full sized version of the image, 
> 
> Why would they need to a screen capture? They could just drag the image
> from the browser to their desktop/Photoshop/whatever in the normal way.

Not if it is a background image.

-- 
dorayme

D.M. Procida wrote:

> Something in the image or its metadata that would be found with a web
> search would help find instances of unauthorised borrowings - if that's
> even possible.

The point of the post you replied to is that if you screen capture it, 
your meta data isn't included, but the person still has a perfect copy 
of the image.

There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find images, 
even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.

http://tineye.com/ for one

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1iv3qt0.r09tn113lj35kN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
: Jerry <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
:
<snip>
:
: > How are you going to stop people doing a screen capture (or 
similar)
: > and thus obtaining an unprotected full sized version of the image,
:
: Why would they need to a screen capture? They could just drag the 
image
: from the browser to their desktop/Photoshop/whatever in the normal 
way.

I was thinking more along the lines of defeating any hidden protection 
in might use.
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

"Tony"  wrote in message 
news:49967dfc$0$507$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
<snip>
:
: There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find 
images,
: even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.
:
: http://tineye.com/ for one
:

So what happens if someone changes their 'illegal' image some how, so 
that a MD5 (or what ever) comparison doesn't match but to the human 
eye it's the same image?
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Tony  wrote:

> D.M. Procida wrote:
> 
> > Something in the image or its metadata that would be found with a web
> > search would help find instances of unauthorised borrowings - if that's
> > even possible.
> 
> The point of the post you replied to is that if you screen capture it,
> your meta data isn't included, but the person still has a perfect copy
> of the image.

I wasn't even thinking about trying to defeat people who are that
determined to get an image (and strip it of its metadata). If something
needs that much protection, I think it simply has to stay off the web.

> There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find images,
> even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.
> 
> http://tineye.com/ for one

Excellent, thanks. Though now I'm starting to fear that the machines are
becoming too intelligent.

Daniele
-- 
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance 
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

        <http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658>

Jerry wrote:
> "Tony"  wrote in message 
> news:49967dfc$0$507$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> <snip>
> :
> : There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find 
> images,
> : even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.
> :
> : http://tineye.com/ for one
> :
> 
> So what happens if someone changes their 'illegal' image some how, so 
> that a MD5 (or what ever) comparison doesn't match but to the human 
> eye it's the same image?

/shrug

Not the question I was answering.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:16:22 -0000, Jerry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>"Tony"  wrote in message 
>news:49967dfc$0$507$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
><snip>
>:
>: There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find 
>images,
>: even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.
>:
>: http://tineye.com/ for one
>:
>
>So what happens if someone changes their 'illegal' image some how, so 
>that a MD5 (or what ever) comparison doesn't match but to the human 
>eye it's the same image?

If they're that determined, then you'll never know unless someone
happens to spot it. But, in reality, that kind of copyright
infringement is both difficult and very rare. If someone is concerned
enough about the possibility of unauthorised copying to not be willing
to take even that risk then the only sensible solution is not to place
it online.

Mark
-- 
Geek for Hire: http://mark.goodge.co.uk/geek-for-hire/

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:q1ldp49ho3cfssntn242rgsbtd3vc46oi7@news.markshouse.net...
: On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:16:22 -0000, Jerry put finger to keyboard and
: typed:
:
: >
: >"Tony"  wrote in message
: >news:49967dfc$0$507$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
: ><snip>
: >:
: >: There are a couple of search engines on the web which will find
: >images,
: >: even if they've been cropped, given a starting image.
: >:
: >: http://tineye.com/ for one
: >:
: >
: >So what happens if someone changes their 'illegal' image some how, 
so
: >that a MD5 (or what ever) comparison doesn't match but to the human
: >eye it's the same image?
:
: If they're that determined, then you'll never know unless someone
: happens to spot it. But, in reality, that kind of copyright
: infringement is both difficult and very rare.

Oh come off it, just a format change or compression change would alter 
the MD5 match, I would suggest that changing file format or altering 
compression are the two most common traits amongst those who use other 
peoples images - pro or armature web authoring.

If someone is concerned
: enough about the possibility of unauthorised copying to not be 
willing
: to take even that risk then the only sensible solution is not to 
place
: it online.
:

Indeed but I was replying to a comment that suggested that some remote 
scanning of the web could detect a stolen image.
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry wrote:

> Indeed but I was replying to a comment that suggested that some remote 
> scanning of the web could detect a stolen image.

That's not what my post said at all.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

"Tony"  wrote in message 
news:499701c9$0$505$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
: Jerry wrote:
:
: > Indeed but I was replying to a comment that suggested that some 
remote
: > scanning of the web could detect a stolen image.
:
: That's not what my post said at all.
:

Well that might not be what you said but it's what was implied given 
the context of the thread;

    "There are a couple of search engines on the web
    which will find images, even if they've been cropped,
    given a starting image."

Sorry if I assumed the obvious!
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.