File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/. I have a question about preventing the scum of the earth from ripping photographs.

Is visual watermarking any good at all in preventing this, at least to show that you have an original which someone's stolen and cropped/zoomed?

I have a flickr account and I was wondering whether or not I should go about protecting my photos, but I prefer (obviously) not watermark. All of my uploads are resized in photoshop and the EXIF data removed, so that only I have the original with all info. The way I figure it, if I ever need to prove that the image is mine, this might be of use.

Can anyone help me out with this issue?
>> des
If you post it, they will gank.
Fagging up your best works with giant watermarks blocking the image isn't going to be showing your best work. It's going to be showing a giant watermark.

The only way to win is not to play, really, or resign yourself
>> Katsu
>>34928
Yeah. I was going to post something exactly like this. If you're going to post any pictures, I would just post tiny thumbs. If they're big enough, then people can print them out regardless if there's a watermark or not.

Especially now in the digital age (lol photoshop), it's hard to prove that you took a photograph unless you have negatives or some physical evidence other than the photo itself.
>> TastyCake !auj1PuPr5s
The question really is: can you actually imagine a situation in which you'd have to prove that you were the creator of a particular photograph?
>> Anonymous
I think you have to pose the question very specifically. As far as stopping people from just taking it and using it for themselves you're pretty much screwed (photoshop, destroying your images, they may not care).

The only thing I can come up with is to cryptographically sign the image with GPG/PGP, store the signature in a text file and append it to the jpg like they do in /b/ (lol, we're good for something?). By doing that someone can determine if the image was really from you (if they trust you) and you have a way to demonstrate to others that an image is yours. The later is trivial to defeat by a sophisticated attacker, but if you just want to issue a DMCA take down notice to an ISP because some kid ripped all your photos for his website it could be useful. There's no other way the images could be signed by your key unless they came from you.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
I only post 640x480 pics in flickr. I figured if somebody downloaded it, it won't be of much use for commercial purposes (printing).
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Steganography; like what>>34933said
>> Anonymous
I think the better question is, why would you want to prevent somebody from using your images? How exactly are you harmed by this?
>> Anonymous
>>34967

real?
>> Anonymous
Slightly alter the RGB values so as to make some kind of digital signature.
>> Anonymous
>>34970

Yes, it is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/24/shark.japan.reut/index.html
>> Anonymous
in the good old days, the owner of the negative/positive had the rights on the images stored on them.

in modern days? hard to tell, all my photos are scanned film so I'm covered :)
I

- 150% certain way is to to date and store the images at a lawyer's office
- deviantart has some kind of copyright, the first one that upload the photo is the owner. there must be more sites that give you some kidn of copyright on your photos, when you upload them
- RAW files can have the same proof as film, but don't be a dumbass... back up your RAW's and don't hand them out
- for amateurs, watermarking is the best I guess. there are also ways of hidden watermarking, by the way

>>34925
I wouldn't mind people getting my EXIF. Just resize the image a bit, so you still own the biggest image
>> Anonymous
There are some pretty robust digital watermarks nowadays. I think even the one included in photoshop and such could withstand a fair amount of image abuse (cropping, resizing, rotation, adding random crap to the image etc.), last time I checked.
>> ?00 !XBOXgikTFw
     File :-(, x)
Just post 800x600 pix at 72/96 DPI. It's enough for online viewing and won't look very good when printed. If you got monies to throw around you could also use http://www.digimarc.com/register <-- this.

Buuuut unless someone uses the pix to make money you shouldn't really act like an emo furfag about it. It's free publicity!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeI'm in ur piktarCamera Modelfaeking ur EXIFImage-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
lol @ shitty noob 'photographers' watermarking their pics fearing somebody will rip them off

<- watermarking, MAFIAA style

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:28 19:09:49Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1440Image Height900
>> Anonymous
>>34982It's free publicity!
Except when someone claims it as his own. Then it's free lol internet drama.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

I disabled downloading on flickr, so that the only thing you get to see is a 500-pixel-width image, meaning that all of my images are less than like 375px, and you can only save them by either knowing how to get at them, or print-screening.

>>34982

I use Photoshop to Save for Web, so that they all come out at 72 PPI/DPI. Is that good enough?

Since I use Photoshop, I also have the added Digimarc plugin. Is this a feasible way to copyright an image?
>> Anonymous
>>3500072 PPI/DPI. Is that good enough?
Why do people think this makes any difference? If you save a 640x480 picture with 4000 DPI, it won't look any better than the if it was 72 DPI. Or am I missing something?
>> Anonymous
I don't put watermarks on my stuff simply because DaVinici never wrote "(c) DaVinici, plz dont steal kthnxbye!" over the Mona Lisa. Plus, it's only effective if you put it over the middle of the image, or else it can just be cropped off. And even then, it'll only stop the morons who don't know how to use the clonestamp tool in photoshop. I can get rid of any watermark in about an hour without cropping it.

I remember there was a program that puts digital watermarks on photos/art.
It's completely invisible, but if you drop a $1000 subscription fee per year, it'll automatically track down any website where it's posted without your permission. That's way too rich for my blood, even to prevent art thievery.

the only photos of mine that have been stolen [to the best of my knowledge] is every single photo I post on /p/. I decided to put a watermark on something I posted on /p/ once [since, hey, this is 4chan, who gives a shit about quality?], and the thread got trolled and deleted within a hour. So I quit posting my stuff here. Now I just comment/critique.
>> Anonymous
>>35002
Were they actually stolen (as in used somewhere, reposted as someone else's, etc.), or do you just assume because it's 4chan?
>> Anonymous
>>35001

I think it's more to do with the printing aspect. If you save an image at 640x480 with 72 ppi, someone can't increase the ppi to get a good print without it being ridiculously small.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>35005
But the same 640x480 image saved with 4000 DPI won't have any additional information to make it look better.

Uh, I'm pretty positive it is so, but so many people repeat the DPI mantra, that I'm starting to question my sanity.

<- from the same picture after changing the DPI setting. It didn't gain or lose any extra pixels from what I can see.
>> Anonymous
>>35006

And it won't, ever. You could have 50203 billion dpi and your monitor will still display it the exact same. The point is that your printer will not. If you save the file at 50% its original size, and save it at 72 ppi, and then try to increase the ppi, you'll either have to scale up the image, causing loss of quality, or print out a really small print. The idea is that it's preventing anyone from making good prints of your photos.
>> Anonymous
>>35007
So explain this to me in the simplest words possible:

- I have 640x480 input pixels
- my printer can output at 300 DPI
- this equals to 5.4 x 4.1 cm exact pixel-to-point size
- if I want to print at bigger size, I need to either print at lower DPI, or upscale the input image
- in both cases, I still only have the original 640x480 pixels to work with.

With that, how does the DPI value embedded in the picture matter at all?
>> Anonymous
>>35010

Say you have a 1600x1200 picture. If you resize it to 800x600, and drop the dpi to 72, if you try and use that file to print with, you are either going to get a really bad print with just 72 dpi, or you have to scale up the image, then increase the dpi, so that you get the same sized image when printed, but higher quality.

Maybe I just don't know jackshit about dpi but think I do?

Come on, /p/, supply us with an expert with a PhD in digital photography printing, or something!
>> des
exif dpi is pretty much meaningless, you can disregard it.

Saving anything at "foo dpi" doesn't change its resolution. If it's 640x480 one millyarn dpi, it's still 640x480.
>> Anonymous
>>35013
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
>> ?00 !XBOXgikTFw
     File :-(, x)
This might make it more clear. Left = many dpi, right = few. Square = one inch paper. Pixel dimensions != document size.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
saying a pixel size and then a dpi is stupid. Screens work at 72dpi so when you have it in pixel format you are typically looking at it at 72 dpi.

When you go to print, you want 300+ dpi (for anything complicated and normal sized). Then when you print the image on paper, the size is reduced (it looks hueg on your monitor) and the dpi is bumped up.

dpi isnt a thing related to screens (not lcds, obviously it affects crts) but to print.
>> Anonymous
somebody already mentioned this, but I'd have to back it up: just post really tiny images. That way they can only steal itty bitty versions of your photo, which are more or less the same quality image, but you've got the better resolution.