| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2007 04:58:56 PM · #1 |
Inspired by this thread
Sometimes I come across an image that I suspect may be stolen from DPC - it's vaguely familiar... But it turns out to be impossible to find on this site to prove it.
I don't know if the SQL database stores the exact image filesize, but it wouldn't be hard to add it.
Then in the image search, add an optional field for filesize (in bytes).
This would help us catch the lazier copy cats (such as faye from the aforementioned thread - and her copy of ursula's shot, 139135 bytes exactly) She obviously did not modify or resave it. Faye has copied at least 20 shots from DPC'ers, and there are a couple others that I suspect, but I can't find the shots on DPC.
I know this won't help in all cases (people or websites may recompress images) but it seems like a small and not difficult step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 05:34:14 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 05:44:18 PM · #3 |
| I have another image protection idea that I'm very excited about... I'm going to try it on my home image collection to see if it's feasible. I'll let you know how it goes. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 05:57:01 PM · #4 |
| Let me put a wild idea, do you think we can have password protected images? what I mean is that, I can go and modify images if I know the super user password to edit and update image otherwise image will be shown as a regular image and no password will be prompted if it is just for the display purpose :) |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 07:25:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by pgirish007:
Let me put a wild idea, do you think we can have password protected images? what I mean is that, I can go and modify images if I know the super user password to edit and update image otherwise image will be shown as a regular image and no password will be prompted if it is just for the display purpose :) |
Huh? I'm not sure what you're asking for.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
07/13/2007 07:44:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're asking for.
~Terry |
drugs :-)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2007 08:18:47 PM · #7 |
| Ummm... aren't they password protected in that way already? I sure haven't seen any way I can do anything but view (and drag'n'drop) anyone else's images! |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 08:52:07 PM · #8 |
| I'd just like to be able to watermark them post challenge. Like Smugmug can. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 09:25:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I have another image protection idea that I'm very excited about... I'm going to try it on my home image collection to see if it's feasible. I'll let you know how it goes. |
I've been holding my breath for almost four hours over this post! I'm turning blue! (Can I become an honorary smurf?) |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 09:40:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ristyz:
I'd just like to be able to watermark them post challenge. Like Smugmug can. |
Yep. I agree. It's been suggested around here before. It could even be auto-generated by DPC post challenge. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 09:42:40 PM · #11 |
Interesting suggestion. One drawback I see is that there will be an awful lot of files with the same file size up around the 200k mark.
How about calculating the MD5 checksum for each jpg? - This will generate a fairly unique signature for each file, and make it possible to perform a direct search for an image that you suspect has been stolen (again, assuming that the thief hasn't re-compressed it or re-sized it) |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 10:02:00 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're asking for.
~Terry |
drugs :-) |
Leroy...how do you know about that????????? was that you on the phone who I ask a few for this evening? ;););)
But really image protection is an important piece...I think the checksum approach would work fine till the time images are not modified for any reason. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 10:11:01 PM · #13 |
As you pointed out, the MD5 checksum is a great idea until the thief realizes what is happening and starts altering the file. Same with the byte count.
As far as watermarks go, it is not going to take a thief long to realize that they can become a member and download the un-watermarked photos while voting.
I'm not an expert on invisible watermarks but it must be possible? Maybe with a "DPC photo" invisible watermark. Then set up a bot server to monitor and search for the watermark on the various photo sites. Maybe the bandwidth, etc. would make this idea impractical.
 Smurfguy, looking forward to your new solution.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2007 10:49:29 PM · #14 |
Oh it's by no means a solution - just an idea that still relies on people recognizing images offsite, but may overcome the "hasn't been re-compressed/resized" problem. I just don't feel like putting it forth until I know it's feasible and it works well.
But, I've been off to dinner, and probably soon to bed... we'll see what tomorrow holds. =) Please, don't hold your breath.
Though also not the complete answer, the filesize/MD5 search option is still a good idea, because while a thief may catch on, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people doing this are probably just copying directly.
Both these ideas would help the community catch these people, which is, I think, our greatest defense. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 11:05:18 PM · #15 |
Also, I've never looked into digimarc before but it appears they watermark the photo and do a web search for it - if I understand the quick read correctly.
//www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/buy-now.asp
At $499/5000 images it wouldn't be feasable for the typical DPC user but I wonder how difficult it would be for DPC to contract with them and offer the service as an add-on option to it's members (at about .15/photo or whatever) Just another thought.
There has to be a satisfactory solution. If there isn't one already, then there are enough creative people on DPC with the knowledge and ability to design a solution.
etit for spelling
Message edited by author 2007-07-13 23:07:36. |
|
|
|
07/13/2007 11:21:34 PM · #16 |
Image protection is a viable and important item to address, but, before we get too technical... as has already been proven here...if someone wants the image they are going to get it. As in all things computer, once it has been written in "Microsoft-stone" it doesn't take the youngsters too long to hack it and make it their's.
i think that probably the best way is too incorporate a watermarking system through DPC, if that is possible. We aren't gonna stop them from getting the shot but we might as well make it so that if they want the photo...they are gonna have to work to get the watermark off of the print.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2007 11:31:12 PM · #17 |
Err ... never mind.
Wrong thread.
*hides in shame*
Message edited by author 2007-07-13 23:37:26.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2007 11:39:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Dantzr:
i think that probably the best way is too incorporate a watermarking system through DPC, if that is possible. We aren't gonna stop them from getting the shot but we might as well make it so that if they want the photo...they are gonna have to work to get the watermark off of the print. |
They are not going to have to remove a watermark if they download the photo while voting. And, attaching a visible watermark before voting does not seem to me to be a reasonable option. |
|
|
|
07/14/2007 08:29:23 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I'm not an expert on invisible watermarks but it must be possible? Maybe with a "DPC photo" invisible watermark. |
Yes, this is technically possible. Using a stenography application (for example Steghide) you can hide text inside a jpg. *However* this approach has the same drawback as both the filesize and the MD5 signatures suggestion; if the thief re-compresses the jpg the hidden text is lost.
We're talking about two main approaches here. 1) The Visible Deterrent (put a visible watermark on the image, or use javascript or some other method to deter the casual image thief) or 2) The Seek-and-Destroy Method (let the thief take the image, but make it easier to find and match stolen images by using some kind of signature) |
|
|
|
07/14/2007 01:07:21 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
We're talking about two main approaches here. 1) The Visible Deterrent (put a visible watermark on the image, or use javascript or some other method to deter the casual image thief) or 2) The Seek-and-Destroy Method (let the thief take the image, but make it easier to find and match stolen images by using some kind of signature) |
Good points. Pertaining to 2) Seek-and-Destroy:
I see a few threads on Digimarc but I don't see any conclusions. It looks as though  kirbic has done a lot of experimenting with digimarc and I am interested in what his (or any other digimarc users) opinion is on a few points.
1. Does a usable digimarc applied on a 640 x 640 image degrade the image to the point where it noticable?
2. Could the digimarc be applied to 640 px jpeg images in batch mode without further degradation or would each individual user have to apply the digimarc to the original image via their image software plug-in.
3. Has anyone ever contacted digimarc to see if they offer a bulk/corporate license and, if so, what is the cost.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2007 01:20:50 PM · #21 |
| To keep this thread readable, please keep the Digimarc discussion here. |
|
|
|
07/14/2007 06:41:48 PM · #22 |
| EBJones found this. Looks like a promising solution unless the cost is prohibitive. Has anyone had any experience with Idee Inc? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 02:51:43 PM EDT.
