> I can't understand the practical usefulness of a concept like
> digital watermarking, which actually invites the stealing of
> your images because there's NO visible deterrent.
Because a visible copyright mark can be cropped off the image, and a digital
watermark is more difficult to remove (in
Hi All:
I have seen both watermarks and copyright notices on images on the internet. I notice
that Photoshop looks for watermarks and the download of the test version
of Vuescan contains a watermark. Are there any relatively inexpensive programs that
can be used to embed them in images?
Gor
Digimark has a web crawler that will report to you locations of your images
that you have not authorized. Of course you have to pay for this service,
but it's pretty neat.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Julie, female Galah (3 years)
Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years)
Snowflake, male
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Copyright on images
>
>
> > I can't understand the practical usefulness of a concept like
> > digital watermarking, which actually invites the stealing of
> > your images because there's NO visible deterrent.
>
> Because a visible
Lets be practical.
I think you are putting too much value on your images (not you personally,
but photographers in general).
If someone is going to steal your images, they're taken, digital watermark
or not. No one's going to police the net looking for watermarked images.
Not for the price th
ubject: Re: Copyright on images
Hi All:
I have seen both watermarks and copyright notices on images on the internet.
I notice that Photoshop looks for watermarks and the download of the test
version
of Vuescan contains a watermark. Are there any relatively inexpensive
programs that can be use
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris
> Subject: RE: Copyright on images
>
> We've found it very difficult to remove the digital watermark. You just
> about have to destroy the visual appeal of the image to do it. It is
> distributed all over the image,
]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 9:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Copyright on images
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> I have seen both watermarks and copyright notices on images on
> the internet. I notice that Photoshop looks for watermarks an
> I can't understand the practical usefulness of a concept like digital
> watermarking, which actually invites the stealing of your images
> because there's NO visible deterrent.
Not only that, it's reportedly fairly easy to render them illegible - and
hence useless - by going through a few re
Disabling the right mouse button (save as command) is fine for novices but
anyone can capture your images by browsing their cache.
What about people who browse with Java turned off?
>Just did some research on this myself. go to www.kagi.com and there is a
>program called h20 marker. It is sh
.
Aloha,
Spencer Stone
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Enoch's Vision,
Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 11:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright on images
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
, October 16, 2000 5:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Copyright on images
>
>
> > I can't understand the practical usefulness of a concept like digital
> > watermarking, which actually invites the stealing of your images
> > because there's NO visible
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Copyright on images
>
>
> Lets be practical.
>
> I think you are putt
I believe that it is very necessary to state your ownership on
images used on the web and that a visible copyright logo is best. If
your images are marked invisibly they may up being used by
someone who doesn't even realise there is an invisible watermark.
It's possible to design a very styli
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Geoff Stafford wrote:
> It's possible to design a very stylish 'rubber stamp' type logo that
> includes your name, e-mail address and the copyright information. I
This is probably something that needs to be done... even if you use
digital watermarking (which I think is a g
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Larry Berman wrote:
> Disabling the right mouse button (save as command) is fine for novices but
> anyone can capture your images by browsing their cache.
Actually, on Windows just press the "Print Screen" and the screen is on
your clip-board...
> What about people who bro
Aloha
Spencer Stone
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright on images
Disabling the right mouse button (save as command) is fine for novices but
anyon
Be aware that there is a crack to remove unwanted Digimark signature
(pretty useless).
At 07:39 16/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Digimark has a web crawler that will report to you locations of your images
>that you have not authorized. Of course you have to pay for this service,
>but it's pretty ne
> What loss of quality?
I mean that if you save your image as a JPG and someone then
does a screen capture and saves it as a JPG again, then there is
inevitable loss of quality.
> I haven't seen many of those pictures that have been diced in to small
> pieces... how does it load? I bet it l
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright on images
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Larry Berman wrote:
>
> > Disabling the right mouse button (save as command) is fine for
> > novices but anyone
Besides, Have you seen how much it costs to use the Digimark process?? If
you wan't anything over 1,000 images you are talking some serious money!
Jim Karr
Karr Photography, LLC
>
>Be aware that there is a crack to remove unwanted Digimark signature
>(pretty useless).
>
>At 07:39 16/10/2000 -0
aw in the
UK?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Geoff Stafford
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright on images
I heard recently that the House of Lords in the UK has ruled
recently that images pro
Geoff Stafford wrote:
> I heard recently that the House of Lords in the UK has ruled
> recently that images produced purely digitally are not covered by
> copyright. Does anyone know anything about this?
Sounds like another Urban Myth hits the streets!
AFAIK the House of Lords cannot independe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:36:04 -0500
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Copyright on images
> Somehow, I doubt it. If the UK is party to any of the international
> copyright or intel
sly is in any way an attack on you or a
refutation of what you have said.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Geoff Stafford
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 6:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright on images
>From what I can gathe
Frank Paris wrote:
>
> I did resizing, changing color saturation, lightness, cropping, all failed
> to remove the watermark. The only thing that did was stretching it quite
> severely. Even stretching it a little did not remove the watermark. So
> Digimarc technology is not totally fragile.
>
Frank Paris wrote:
>
> We've found it very difficult to remove the digital watermark. You just
> about have to destroy the visual appeal of the image to do it. It is
> distributed all over the image, so cropping it does not remove the
> watermark.
>
> No visible deterrent isn't necessarily a l
Geoff Stafford wrote:
>
> >From what I can gather, they said that because digital copies can
> be exactly the same as the first, that means there is no 'original'
> and that copyright hinges on there being an original.
>
> If it is true then it IS ridiculous and the House of Lords has once
> a
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
> >>From what I can gather, they said that because digital copies can
> >be exactly the same as the first, that means there is no 'original'
> >and that copyright hinges on there being an original.
>
> They obviously do not know anything about the variability of monitor
concrete imaging manifestation.
But your point is correct and accepted as to what they probably assumed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright on
30 matches
Mail list logo
