Copyright EXIF -vs- Watermarks

K

KWJams

Senior Member
This may be a dumb question. But when you download a picture from your camera and all the creator EXIF information is embedded --- doesn't that pretty much protect an image from being stolen with out having to put a huge watermark across a great picture?

Will the original EXIF info always be a part of the image?
 
P

pedroj

Senior Member
You can wipe the exif data out in PS

In my situation with images being stolen I had them on a web site without a watermark..People downloaded them printed and added them to their phones...They were 800x533 and 300 dpi and I didn't realize they would look ok printed
 
P

pedroj

Senior Member
TedG954 said:
Why didn't you believe they would look OK? I'm trying to understand the whole DPI thing. :uncomfortableness:
Click to expand...
They were images of surfers

I thought the 800x533 would be to small to print...One of my mates told me what some of the people were up to..

I bought a watermark and put on them eventually...
 
K

KWJams

Senior Member
pedroj said:
You can wipe the exif data out in PS
Click to expand...

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Guess if it is that easy to erase them, then there doesn't seem to be much sense in wasting a lot of time filing out the EXIF information form when downloading them.

Maybe the sneaky way to protect yourself is to put a really-really small almost undetectable watermark, let them steal it and make a bunch of money and then nail them. ;)
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Way back in the day when a 2 meg file was HUGE, there was a little program called Fractals.

This program used an unusual algorithm to allow enlargement of small image files to be printed

at larger sizes. As I recall, this was a damn fine image enlarging program.

A small watermark placed in the center will grow as the image is being enlarged.

Talk to Marcel about placing watermarks unobtrusively in a shot. He is the MASTER at this. :)

Take a look at Marcels images and you'll see what I mean.
 
K

KWJams

Senior Member
SamSpade1941 said:
You know watermarks can be removed right ?
Click to expand...

I know that you can remove warts pretty easy ,,,,,,

Guess what it all comes down to is having a back up system so when you stumble upon on of your images that someone removed the watermark EXIF information you can prove ownership with the original --- or can that be faked as well??
 
T

tmcguire17

Senior Member
Thats then benefit of not allowing right click menus on your site as well. I have a small watermark so the images view nicely but yo cant download or copy and paste. You could feasibly use snag it for a screenshot but......
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
KWJams said:
I know that you can remove warts pretty easy ,,,,,,

Guess what it all comes down to is having a back up system so when you stumble upon on of your images that someone removed the watermark EXIF information you can prove ownership with the original --- or can that be faked as well??
Click to expand...

Even if you can prove it's your image, what do you really think you'll get out of it?

I always resize my pics to 72 dpi. They look ok for the web, but if someone tries to print them, the quality really sucks. It might not prevent the theft, but at some point pictures are made to be looked at, I'm not trying to earn my living with mine.
 
S

SamSpade1941

Senior Member
Everyone has their own opinions of how to protect them selves from this sort of thing, not that I consider my self to be Tim Page or anyone of noteworthiness by any means, however I have been published a couple of times by accident. Most recently about two years ago, I was using water marks at the time on all my images. A local publication in my area found a landscape I shot and posted on the web, it was watermarked, they wanted to use the image and contacted me at home. I gave them permission to use the image how they wanted me to provide them with a copy of the image that was not watermarked for publication.

The publication in question replied that the image they found on the web was of sufficient size and quality that they would be able to use it for their publication and they could remove the water mark. The thing is they very well could have just used my image and never said anything to me especially since I never read that little publication ever. I would never have known, I was very tickled that they had the honesty and integrity to contact me and ask my permission.


As far as your copyright goes its yours from the day you push the shutter button 70 years forward. You do not have to register your photos or anything else. I know you can place copies of your images on file with the US Govt. if you want , but it does not affect your copy right in anyway. Since I keep all my original raw files I have more than ample proof that I am the owner of my images. I actually use a Creative Commons 3.0 licenses on most of my images because I want people to see them and share them. The Creative Commons license I grant allows non commercial uses as long as the image is not modified. The person using my image must also give attribution to me.


None of it means someone will not steal an image, I just do not think water marks enhance the photo and they do next to nothing to prevent the image from being used if someone wants to use it. If the water mark makes you feel better though go head and use. One last word on copyright information being embedded in the EXIF in a photo. Did you know someone can strip all the EXIF data from a photo simply by saving the photo as a PNG and then re saving it as a JPG?

Cheers
 
Last edited:
S

SamSpade1941

Senior Member
Marcel said:
Even if you can prove it's your image, what do you really think you'll get out of it?

I always resize my pics to 72 dpi. They look ok for the web, but if someone tries to print them, the quality really sucks. It might not prevent the theft, but at some point pictures are made to be looked at, I'm not trying to earn my living with mine.
Click to expand...



Marcel,


Thats kind of the point I was getting at, you got there in a lot fewer words Kudos.
 
S

stmv

Senior Member
I consider that in reality,any content uploaded to the web, essentially an open system, is allowing its use whether or not you want the image to be shared. My take, is that my images are reduced enought that the image is sessentially useful for web content, screen savors, and small prints. Since I, of course have the original, large prints and of course proof of ownership will always be there.

So, like music, words, web designe, etc,,, just don't get hung up on the subject, Post on the web if you want broader audience to view your work, understand that people will use the shot whether or
not copyright laws say no, an decide on your own if the value of posting on the web is worth the effort.
 
K

KWJams

Senior Member
Couple of days ago I got a phone call from a guy who runs a printing business who had a friend of his that wanted to have one of my pictures of his friend printed on business cards. Told him sure, no problem and thanked him for tracking me down to ask permission first and that I would see if I had any other pictures of the guy that I would email copies of the originals.
On my EXIF information I place a simple copyright stating permission granted upon request.

But a couple weeks ago I saw a T-shirt with looked like may be one of my images that was for sale. They photo shopped the front number plate on the motorcycle to a different number but the rider was clearly recognizable and I am pretty sure it was one of my pictures.

Last year a guy asked to use some of my pictures which I granted him the use, but he didn't say that he was going to use them to make a calender to sale, which he did.

I know that many will take this wrong, and my attitude may be part of the problem, but I take pictures as a hobby and not as a way to make money. But I do resent that others will use my generosity to make money for them selves and want to do what needs to be done to prevent theft and abuse of others who do this for a living.

Can't watermarks that are placed as a layer be merged / flattened to all layers so it can't be removed?
 
S

SamSpade1941

Senior Member
KWJams said:
Couple of days ago I got a phone call from a guy who runs a printing business who had a friend of his that wanted to have one of my pictures of his friend printed on business cards. Told him sure, no problem and thanked him for tracking me down to ask permission first and that I would see if I had any other pictures of the guy that I would email copies of the originals.
On my EXIF information I place a simple copyright stating permission granted upon request.

But a couple weeks ago I saw a T-shirt with looked like may be one of my images that was for sale. They photo shopped the front number plate on the motorcycle to a different number but the rider was clearly recognizable and I am pretty sure it was one of my pictures.

Last year a guy asked to use some of my pictures which I granted him the use, but he didn't say that he was going to use them to make a calender to sale, which he did.

I know that many will take this wrong, and my attitude may be part of the problem, but I take pictures as a hobby and not as a way to make money. But I do resent that others will use my generosity to make money for them selves and want to do what needs to be done to prevent theft and abuse of others who do this for a living.

Can't watermarks that are placed as a layer be merged / flattened to all layers so it can't be removed?
Click to expand...



The short answer is no ... The longer answer is you can make it hard to do, it really depends on the technical acumen of the person wanting to steal your image and use it. The other part of that equation is that yes there are people who simply will do it for the challenge and nothing else. The best and easiest counter measure to use is to do as Marcel suggested and resize your images to 72 dpi. I personally use 90 dpi these days to account for the newer HD capability of monitors but 72 still works well. The larger you make your image the more DATA you give someone wanting to steal your image to work with. They have less data to work with when repairing things like water marks or resizing from 72 dpi ...
 
S

SamSpade1941

Senior Member
LensWork said:
Digimarc is an imperceptible digital watermark that cannot be removed and is traceable.
Click to expand...


The information they (Digimarc) put out on their website sounds good on its face. I will maintain that there is no full proof way to mark an image file or any file for that matter that would stop it from being altered and the copyright or watermark removed. Information assurance is about mitigation it is the best one can hope for, in that Digimarc is a good counter measure against those who are unsophisticated to defeat it. Someone who is armed with the right set of image processing tools can remove it has been proven to be done more than once.

The one thing I do know about Digimarc is that it degrades the image and I do want people to see what I originally witnessed when I shot the photo. I think SMTV said it aptly anything you put on the web is essentially content you decided to share with the whole world.
 
E

Eye-level

Banned
A family member of mine is an executive for a oil and gas software firm and a few years back they had a website built. Last year they were sued for improper usage of images which were on the website. They had to pay up...turns out the website builder just randomly selected some images off of the net and used them without a release. Now how someone found out their images were usurped don't ask me but they did and they got paid for them too...
 
Top