Nothing Is Safe On The Internet, But......

digimarc degrades images by placing a fine layer of noise over the image. it can be defeated by adding a light blur. and is undetectable if you remove the pluggin from photoshop like i did. it uses memory and time. any kind of compression will also smudge it down. and even if you knew someone took it, you only know that they opened it. and even if you knew they did something with it, you would have to fight it out in court. so it's not really worth a $100


---Mike Savad

it also only works if you have photoshop. use gimp, a painter, corel, etc, and its not useful again.

---Mike Savad

My 2 cents is that the only thing worse than someone stealing my images, is someone not stealing my images. Musicians learned this lesson during the big file sharing days, and now most offer their music for free on their website, and it seems to boost rather than hinder sales...go figure...

In music, however, artists have other ways to make more money -- concerts, t-shirts, etc. I'd think the better comparison might be the newspaper industry. For years they gave away their paper online while at the same time trying to sell you the same paper, printed, and either delivered to your house or in a box at a store. Now newspapers are a dying business and admittedly were before the internet. Since newspapers and photographers/artists have only their newspapers and art to sale, the musicians can afford to take a hit on their music.

" Musicians learned this lesson during the big file sharing days, and now most offer their music for free on their website, and it seems to boost rather than hinder sales...go figure"

Maybe newer or no-name musicians do this but the "big" and famous bands don't. People actually PAY for their music.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digimark.htm

here's the skinny on digimarc


---Mike Savad

Lol, thanks Mike, I enjoyed the conclusions -

"Then why use Digimarc?

Beats me. The disadvantages are many, and the only advantage is that you can use it to look for your watermark later. Big deal!"

i might as well write MIKE across it. digimarc looks invisible so people will just take it. the best you can do is hide in their closet and say - ha! gotcha, you put it on your page!, know how i knew? digimarc told me.

where as i can do a reverse search and find my image that way. mean while i can crop their images down removing much of the mark. using almost any other program. and most of the code is gone.

images will be taken, its not worth knowing about it. i would rather not know myself. if someone took the image and is selling it in a store - like walmart, digimarc can't help you there because the image has been printed. and a copy of the print won't help because it's a scattering of noise.

it can be useful for secret messages, so that is sort of a plus.

---Mike Savad

Nadine, Bob,

Thank you so much for all you do for other artists. Seems every corner I turn the two of you have always provided opportunity after opportunity to help people. Your diligence in seeing artists succeed cannot be matched.

The two of you have hearts of gold, bless you both!

Thanks!

Thank you Nadine and Bob for this information and looking out for your fellow artists.

Thanks also to Mike for explaining Digimarc more fully.

Just one thought - the images displayed on this site are not the hi-res ones we upload. If we digimarc our uploads, does the mark get transferred to the images that the site generates for display?

I had someone steal one of my images to put on those free wallpaper sites by actually scanning or photographing a physical canvas print (perhaps purchased right here on FAA!) and creating a high-res images from that. So even Digimarc will not protect you.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems Digimark only protects you from someone posting your image on a web site, "as Digimarc searches billions of images daily looking for your unique ID embedded right in the image"
It doesn't stop me from taking a screen capture of an image, printing multiple copies of it at A4 size on my printer and taking them to the local market and selling them for £5/copy. They may be poor quality but I bet people would still buy them if the if the subject was interesting - that is what I would call theft.

For those asking, no, it will not help here

a good possible use is for statistics. if you applied it to an image for facebook, one for tumblr etc - each with it's own code. you can track where they steal the images the most - provided they don't re-compress it again. it can sort of help, so you know what is looked at the most. it might be a better source of aggravation, but that is a more positive use of it. if you also add a real watermark they know who you are. and if it ends up on a site that is interesting, maybe you can get a link back. though i don't think i would pay $100 for that privilege.

now if they modified the ITPC, or the exif, in a location where it couldn't be stripped off, that would be worth something.

---Mike Savad

@John, I have to challenge you on your statement that "big band" musicians don't give away their music...I would bet you can't find a single example that proves your theory, but I am more than confident that I can quickly post thousands that verifies mine :)

Appreciate your efforts at providing tools for the folks here Bob and Nadine...

"John, I have to challenge you on your statement that "big band" musicians don't give away their music..."

Without even checking I will say Pink Floyd.

Sooner? Did I give you a single example?

About Jane's comment -
"Just one thought - the images displayed on this site are not the hi-res ones we upload....."

This may be a small digression to the original conversation, but I've asked this before and got the answer, or so I thought, that what is displayed IS our original image, not some version of it.

So - is what is displayed a degraded version of our uploaded image? It would be nice to know this for sure once and for all.

they recompress the old image. so if you sent it as a 12, their version is often a 9, and upclose it can be even less. if you have a lot of primary flat colors, you'll see a lot of noise. it's cases like that i do wonder what the point of the close up box is. if the compression is so high that it degrades the image, well it couldn't be a good selling point. on the plus side it only seems to effect images that compress really well.

---Mike Savad

Thank you, Mike, for the explanation.
I wonder if buyers use that feature and if it sways their decision to buy one image vs. another. Maybe if would be helpful to have some explanation that the 'full resolution preview' they are looking at is really not what they will get. As it is, it is definitely misleading.
Don't want to derail this discussion further - I should look to see if this had been discussed or take this up in a separate one.......

hard to say. my stuff has a lot of detail and sometimes people like to look at this is the only site that seems to have that feature, it might be a good thing. however if you click the edge, it will stretch it out. and the resolution is lower over all. it should really be higher.

---Mike Savad

First in Digimarc, there is only ONE code, the ID which is assigned to the User. There is a place to add a Year for the copyright, possibly you could add something to box. But, then that would void a copyright if different years or codes were put into it.

Actually have never been very impressed with Ken Rockwell reviews or other information, and many pros have stopped reading them years ago. He also has monetary reasons for recommending one product over another, to me that's like asking Ford for a review of Honda.
For Good information on Photography personally go to Photo.Net, probably the largest community of Photographers anywhere.... where there are a lot more professionals for advice or opinions.

Personally see very little of an degradation of my images in Fineartamerica.com or in Photoshop from adding Digimarc.
One reason is probably due the the Size of the file. If you add it to a 25 mg file, the difference is much less than a 6mg file.
Even when adding it to a JPG.

IT also depends on WHAT file you add the digimarc too, add it to a PNG and I see no difference in the file, even at PIXEL levels.
However changing ANY JPG for ANY reason AFTER you create it - degrades - the file, that has nothing to do with Digimarc.
Its not because you just added Digimarc, but because you modify it AFTER the JPG was created, its also BECAUSE you use JPG.

Add Digimarc to a PNG, then create the JPG IF you want to use it, and you get as good a JPG as you do, when just making the JPG.
BUT, Id rather just upload the PNG, at the original file size. It may take a bit longer, but the QUALITY of the PNG is superior to JPG....

So for years have been telling people NEVER do anything to a JPG. DO not alter color, edit it in any way, resize it, etc as it degrades it.
Personally prefer RAW files, then convert them after editing in Lightroom which never changes the ORIGINAL file. Then, create a TIF, PNG, or if I must for relatives, etc create a JPG to send them.

When Digimarc notifies you of a copyright violation, you can sue and prove the case. Many times if you just Bill the site, for licensing, they will pay it, rather than go to court.

anything that adds delibrate noise to my image isn't wanted. and being that it's so easily defeated, there is little point. you need the digimarc reader plugin - erased. done. the rest is a softening, then also done. but if like it fine.

thing is, once you have a jpg online, if it's downloaded and resaved to a lower quality, it would hurt the mark. almost any kind of saving over would destroy it. chances are if you find someone that "took" your image, it's all heresay without actual proof. you and they only know they looked at it when the digicmarc scan looked at it. downloading and looking are not illegal. and many people take the original and smear it in a painter program anyway, which would nullify the watermark. sending a rogue bill, no one will pay that. not unless you find your actual image on their site and prove that it is really yours. but just remember, it needs two halves to work, it comes with photoshop, but it's easily removed.

in any case thanks for the info but if they can make it where it doesn't do anything to the scene and instead embeds it in some part of the file where the exif isn't touched, i may look at it. as abbie said, it won't work on this site because the site recompresses the image. and it won't work on other sites for the same reason. it would only be good if you use it on a blog or something you have control over.

---Mike Savad

i'm not missing the point phillip, the cons out way the pro's. and unless you find your image on their site physically - you can't prove anything at all.

---Mike Savad

Correct Phillip That is one of my Points. TIME is worth money, spend hours on the internet searching to find someone using your image costs more than its worth.

Even though Retired, my time is worth more than it was when working, as there is a lot less of it left. At 16 worked for .25 cents an hour, when just before we retired for $150+ an hour.
Now my time has become more valuable as at 85 there is so much less left. Save ONE hour of searching to see if someone is using an image to promote their site or in a blog, and you save more than the program cost for a year.

It could be that Musicians who release their work right away, do so for the same reason they used AM radio to promote music.
People used to tape music even from AM, but they sold a lot of music. The ones listening to it, wanted their own original....
Its like watching Movies on TV, then buying DVD, the copy on DVD is much better, many times has more that has been cut for TV.

a quick question popped into my head. i took your image. its on my computer and no place else, digimarc is alerted. what possible information does it have to give you? it won't know their name, mailing address, email, etc. and anything it does give you would be a violation of their privacy. what info do you get? and do they scan the net for those images?

i personally don't do searches for my images because its not worth the head ache. you would still have to track down the owners of the site, addresses. etc and bill them and that takes too much time. i'd rather be creating.. because i do one better, i don't spend any time looking and i have that much time left over having done nothing. but i am still curious what exactly is sent? is it from their computer? or do they find it via a bot of some kind on that persons site?


---Mike Savad

huh?

what may have a use may not be as useful as it looks on paper. from what i've seen, especially on this site, a user will download an image they found on google. then run it through a painter. i'm wondering how well it would survive that. because most that i've seen that is the filter they use, then call it a painting. or they run fractilus over it, does digimarc, mark it in any other way other than through static?

i was reading on another site, they didn't like ken's blog either (i only found the first thing i saw myself). and many tried to defeat it using cropping and blurring. but only said that it made a mess of the image. but no one mentioned how they are usually taken. to smooth over the entire surface would defeat it, most likely. anyone care to test that? i'm curious.

---Mike Savad

Actually FAA is not the best place to steal images, pinterest is (among a few others) The T&C of Pinterest are also very very bad. I avoid them like the plague

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/comments/noi_02263013/Umans-Randy.pdf

the real advantage i see, is that it does the looking for you for all the images you have. but you would still have to take the time to bill people that probably won't pay you. they will sooner remove it and ignore any email they get from you. i think knowing just gives you an ulcer. and if your putting it on stock, and you don't know who bought the image, then it may work against you as well.

my images are all about pixel peeping. as it is i have noise issues and i have to do something about it, usually softening the image. up close if there is extra noise that i can't remove or shouldn't, that may be loss detail if i wanted to see fine writing or something. if i were to view an image using 25,000iso and used it at 1/4 the size, then it looks totally clean. but if i wanted to print it on this site they would not. and more noise, more problems. now if i could control where the mark went. say in the dead space of a background or if i could use it as a stamp and place it in a certain location, then it would be far more interesting. though still easily defeated with a simple filter.

---Mike Savad

Rudy,

I am new here. I have been lurking for a few months. I have not posted my images yet.
I am a digital artist. I am working on 21 images for release later this fall.

Your contribution of that article was very worthwhile A great piece of work. These issues
matter greatly to me. I will only be using FAA, my own website, Google Plus, and YouTube.

I had thought of using Pinterest, FB, TWTR and others, but dont like the legal gibberish.

I might use Stumbleupon. Is SU very misused? And does SU sub license submitted materials?

One thing that everyone should be more aware of is how most websites are far too
self serving. I thought of using Zazzle, but to make $3 to $8 for a calendar or less for
other goods while Zazzle is overcharging the public, reallly? Not a good idea.

Mike I follow your writings and learn very carefully from them. Thanks for your contributions.
My prices for smaller objects such as cards will be higher for the first card. If people are
truly interested in buying my work they will need to think about buying somewhat larger works.

Over the years I have seen how others buy art. Corporations buy art and write off the expense.
Individual households fall into different income groups. Most of the art on this site is not bought
by the top echelons of the top 1% of households by income. Some of the top one percent, below
the 0.5% and down to the top 20% of households will possibly buy art here. I wish we had demographic
age numbers. That would tell us a great deal with clarity. I think younger folks are more likely to be
buyers of art online. The budget at corporations seems to be $800 to $1200 per work. Households
will vary, but paying $1000 for a work among the top 10% of households is common. The $1000 mark is
hard to brake though from the retail perspective if you want volume. And most middle class
and upper middle class households will have a very limited number of works where they spent over $1000
per work. Of course some upper middle class households have serious art collections and would
buy very few if any works of art as POD.

Thoughts and comments on this statement will be appreciated.

I expect my work if people like it to be taken by others, but I want to slow that part of the process
down.

knowing who is buying won't help much because art is individual, though this is really getting off the topic of invisible watermarks so i can't get too much into it here.

---Mike Savad

What do folks think of SU? And how secure artists' images are with them?

David - check paragraph 10C of the SU Terms of Service. Like Pinterest, I don't use them.

another way to get your money - It's an "insurance" program - and if no one ever steals your art - guess what - you are out $99.

Have tried it with many different painting programs, the ID remains in spite of what they may do with it.
As those who use photos use Photoshop professionally, have sold some who found my ID inside the image contact me to purchase it.
Thousands search for images with Google, and find what they are looking for there. One purchase that way pays for a year of use.

Smoothing over the entire surface does not defeat Digimarc.
Using a noise program to remove noise does not defeat it, but if you do a lot you also lose a lot of detail.

Probably millions are using images they find for background on their computer, know many are using images we gave away freely for a long time. That was when working as a therapist, and not selling images at all. They are found on all the free sites giving away background images. Could care less about them, that's why we gave them away. Others can be using them from Pinterest, etc. However as a Psychotherapist realize that we are losing nothing if they use them on their system. Anyone who does that will never buy a copy anyway.

LOCKS are just to keep people honest. Those who are not, will break in anyway. Those who would buy it, will buy it just like they buy DVDs of movies and music, because they are honest. As long as we sell reproductions of paintings or photos to supplement our retirement we are satisfied.

My mother used to worry about thousands of things which never happened.
The last year of her life she said, "What a lot of time I wasted being unhappy, when I could have been much happier."

Id rather spend my time promoting our work, than wasting it worrying about those who "might use it," when we dont even know if they are.

Am not on such an Ego trip that we feel everyone is stealing copies of our work to use it....

If it makes them "FEEL good to see our work" then we have at least done something good for others, as long as they dont Sell it, could care less.

WHAT IS, is, and will be, worrying will not change anything...

Since beginning this discussion, have sold two over 30x Promoting our work has a lot more to do with selling,
than trying too figure out if someone is stealing it or using it privately on their computer...

Usually dont post my sales, but as this one was a total surprise decided to do so...
Did this cause it would Fit on a Cabinet Door in our RV. Never expected it to sell.

http://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=560500e6d6a082ccac5f281c4922a2a9

so if you ran that thing through a painter - and mashed it up - you can still read it?

smoothing wouldn't do it because it would just be a softer version of the static that's placed on it. but most people that steal an image won't pass it through a blur filter they will send it through a painting filter or program

many people think it's totally ok to take an image and as long as they mash it up and call it a painting it's ok. can digimarc survive that process?



---Mike Savad

Yep, when you run it through Photoshop after making major mods in a painting program, Digimarc still reads the ID....

Just did it again and did even more to try to mash the Digimarc ID.

Adding three filters in Photoshop Sandstone, Burlap, and Brick.

Then running it through a painting program which removed a lot 75% of detail, the Digimarc ID was read easily.

Digimarc also imbeds a copyright symbol in the file so it shows at the beginning of the file-name when you load it.


.

those are just overlays, the static would remain, pass it through DA painter, it repaints it using a brush overlay, it will fade the image over it a bit, but usually not enough to see details.

---Mike Savad

AS I said, I ran it through the Painter AFTER adding the textures, and the Digimarc was still as legible.
Textures are NOT overlays, they become PART of the image when you flatten the file...

When you add a Digimarc (your ID number is embedded into the file) it tells you how strong you added it.
When you read it after running through the paint program and read it with Digimarc it tells you how strong the ID...
It loses very LITTLE strength it shows a graphic bar for the level, and it is not reduced any appreciable amount.

Personally know why. Have been working with computers since 1948, when you had to have a Top Secret clearance by the FBI.
Even back then they could do things with computers that were beyond the imagination of most. Today those things are child's play.
Have had my own Desktop computers since the early 70's when we had to build our own, and even then they amazed me. :)

The original engineers who developed Digimac worked for NASA, they do things which are "Out of this world." )

"The digital watermark persists through file copying, format changes, encryption and decryption, as well as image manipulations such as editing, cropping, compression and decompression — all without affecting the quality of the image or the enjoyment of its viewers."

The comparison used by Rockwell is absurd... Usually add the Digimarc in either a DMG RAW or PNG file....

ADDING ANYTHING or Doing Anything to a JPG file will degrade it, has nothing to do with DIGIMARC

The fact that he used JPG for an example is more of a statement about HIM or his knowledge than about Digimarc.

Bob are you uploading PNG or JPEG files to FAA if you dont mind my asking?

Can I add a DIGIMARC to a PSD file and then save as... a JPEG to upload to FAA?

Is it worth using 25 MB PNG files for uploading to FAA over JPEG files?


Rudy I can imagine what paragraph 10 C says, because I have read it elsewhere before reading
your well written report. There is a definite divide between serving the seller ie us, and serving
the middleman ie Pinterest or Twitter. The comparison is very stark.

I was shocked by how bad Deviant Art is to their crowd. Worthless. Contests sponsored
by the artists. To win what? I did not bother getting into it that far. Worthless. Actually worse,
a huge negative sucking sound in the wrong direction.

Oh and Bob and other members, is PNG 24 which I think is available in Photoshop CC
better for uploading to FAA than PNG 8? Or in other words PNG?

Rudy, Bob and Mike, et al,

I have looked at images on this site and discovered for myself that the right click wont work.
Is that automatic? I do see that the thumbnails of the same very images allow for
right clicking.

Rudy I can see the icons for FB, TWTR, G+, SU, P above your bio. You do allow
FB to access your thumbnails. Is this because the thumbnails would be all they get
and they are not useful enough for copying and enlarging? You allow TWTR access
as well, same story? And Google Plus has access. What is Google Plus good for?
Anyone? Is there a bigger following on Google Plus than I know? After that SU and P are
locked out somewhat by your instructions as phrased by FAA.

TIA

Upload in jpg. Png files get converted to jpg before printing, so you may as well control the conversion.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Bob, sorry about my many posts,

I just took the time to go over all your writings in this discussion.

PNG, but PNG 24 for FAA?

Digimarc, not digimark.

Use Pinterest and Twitter to drive sales. This makes plenty of sense and it is free.

SU is neither here nor there for the most part.

I wont be doing any commission work so my need for FB is very limited.

I read some figures recently, I dont remember where, email campaigns have
3.2% click through rates. FB campaigns have 0.6% click through rates. All
other internet medias have something in between as click through rates.

Using Twitter and Pinterest together depending on the artist can create a goodly
click through rate. JMO I may not like Twtr's licensing arrangements fully, but I do
like their business model a lot. They are real time a bit like Google, unlike FB.
TWTR's business model will become more and more of a competitor to Google's
ad driven model. It all makes FB look like a larger telephone book, while if you want to
actually know anything for research you use Google and for the news you will use TWTR.
CBS, CNN, FOX etc.....will do more eventually on TWTR than they do on the large
HDTV in your living room. The advertisers will follow.

Eventually if a jet crashes in LA, and Twitter has 750 million users, perhaps 10 million
people will immediately turn to Twitter for the news. Software in the background will do all
sorts of things. Ads will be aimed at some folks offering travel insurance. Other ads that are tacky
will offer up the competing air lines that were not involved in the crash. Instead of getting the
remote and turning on the cable TV people will have conversations around the world as the events
unfolds. Groups of viewers will grow and shrink as events happen. And Twitter will sell ads based on
much more than the cable TV guys ever knew about different households viewing habits etc.
Twitter will know all your preferences, your FICO, and your bank balance before putting your
viewership out to bid. The cable guys had access to all of that data, but the platform was too
stodgy when it came to tailoring the adverts.

Thanks Dan, but can I go back to my PSD files and digimarc them?

Or do I have to create PNG files and then digimarc them, followed by
creating JPEG files? And is PNG 24 worth using in that process?

David, I don't use Digimarc so I don't know where in the process it is best applied.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

https://dfi.digimarc.com/selectProduct.aspx?family=pro

Dan,

It is a very interesting process.

We will see tomorrow what others add to this conversation. It is late,

have a good night.

"Add Digimarc to a PNG, then create the JPG IF you want to use it, and you get as good a JPG as you do, when just making the JPG.
BUT, Id rather just upload the PNG, at the original file size. It may take a bit longer, but the QUALITY of the PNG is superior to JPG.... "

- Bob Johnson

Bob,

I have read your materials here a few times over. I get it. Thanks.