Forwarded to the list.
>Hi,
>
>Re: Tony Crockford's earlier email:
>
>Everyone should be aware that simply performing a screen capture
>of a Suresign protected image does NOT bypass the watermarking
>system. I have run extensive tests and even drastic cropping,
>resizing and tonal alteration do not remove the watermark which is
>always still detectable in a "re-used" image.
>
>Tony, Perhaps I have not fully understood your meaning, apologies
>if I have. Do you alternatively refer to watermarking's inability
>to stop the physical 'theft' of the images? If so, there is no
>practical way of doing that, digital watermarking merely means
>that it is harder to deny the true origin of an image under UK
>law. Like most methods of crime prevention, its a case of making
>it harder for the criminals rather than stopping them altogether.
I think I was making the point that the only way to identify an image is
with watermarking but there is no technology that will properly prevent the
image being taken in the first place.
The article I referred to indicates that there are many (futile) ways in
which money could be wasted trying to prevent theft of images.
I agree that an invisible watermark (digimarc / suresign to name two) is the
best way to identify a stolen image, in the same way that marking property
with ultraviolet ink works.
Visible watermarking is the best deterrent and clearly indicates that the
image is not free of copyright.
A combination of invisible and visible watermarking will enable images to be
claimed as stolen in a court of law.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Tony
--
http://www.xebit.net
Exhibition Technologies
|