Comments on: Copy Protection for Images, An Idea

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:21:16 +0000

The password method is an interesting idea, quite a feat to implement as you mention. It would essentially have to be part of a new image format file, and just look at the resistance to just doing DNG.

I simply apply a visual watermark and keep image sizes a reasonable size, but not too small that be a hinder for actual customers. The music industry is still struggling with copyright protection, I don’t imagine the photo industry will catch up anytime soon.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Fri, 18 May 2007 20:48:43 +0000

It would be nice, but it would never work. The very fact that it can be viewed means it can be copied. Even if you disable saving/copying/opening without a password, a user can still “print screen” and paste the screenshot into an editor and save the photo. And even if there is some workaround to disable print screen, the principle still holds: as long as it can be seen, it can be duplicated. Someone can take a camera and shoot the image on the screen, then print that picture. This is true with any media. Analogy: With music, as long as you can hear it, it can be recorded; someone just needs to be holding an audio recorder near the sound source. Sure, the quality will be degraded, but the music can be duplicated. And if the thief gets sophisticated recording equipment as good as the human ear, the thief has won.

Microsoft can’t even prevent pirates from copying its own software and working around its security features.. warez and codes and serial numbers and hacks are released as quickly as new software products are. And HD-DVD, anyone? There will ALWAYS be a workaround or hack, if the programmers/hackers want it badly enough.

By: Bryan C

Bryan C — Fri, 18 May 2007 19:13:49 +0000

I’m afraid you’ve underestimated the complexity of implementing this idea. Such a copy protection scheme would have so many points of vulnerability that it’d be virtually useless. It’d end up like a much more fragile and expensive version of those silly Javascript right-click things some people think will “protect” their graphics. It’d just give a passing illusion of security to non-technical people who don’t know any better.

Invisible digital watermarks are probably the best answer. They don’t prevent theft (nothing can) but they can help prove it after the fact. Restricting yourself to small images works ok in some cases but very poorly in others. I scrunched my images and scans down at first, until one day I realized that I was deliberately damaging the quality of my own work in order to make it too unappealing to steal. Why in the world would I want to do that? All my own photos are uploaded at original size and quality, or very close to it. If some dishonest bastard going to steal my work then shame on them, but I’m not going to let them control how I enjoy my hobby.

By: Casey A

Casey A — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:34:48 +0000

Copy protection. The endless controversy in the digital world. It ranges from music to video to images. I do not think that there is ever going to be password protection for current image files. It simply would not work, nor would it be feasible. You speak of Apple and Microsoft making it happen? The issue does not lay in the operating system. It does not lay in the software. A witty user could and can circumvent software protections without much trouble. If the protection is built into the operating system, then so is the “deprotection.” So where is the next step, perhaps build protection into hardware devices? A likely candidate, but such technologies can be circumvented as well. It is like leaving the key under the mat or a password written in “invisible” ink. You call them Hackers — the Bad Guys. The title hacker has such a negative connotation and the title is often misused. Knowledge is power. However, this isn’t about that, this is about dishonest people taking your intellectual property.

One way to prove that someone stole your photo is by means of a digital signature embedded within a lossless image, meaning, an image that has not been compressed. This is accomplished with Steganography. This technique is only useful to prove that someone has a copyrighted image–it does not protect your image from being copied–it is much like a watermark. This begs the question, “how can I protect my images from being stolen?” I have the simplest solution to protecting your images.

The solution is to stop posting images online. You want to share your work with the world though, perhaps you have dreams of being a famous artist, but you don’t want dishonest people to steal it? Well, you’ve chosen the wrong place to do it. Once something is digitized, it is a bunch of reproducible ones and zeros. Once that digitized thing reaches the World Wide Web, it is passed through countless networks, cached here, a packet dropped there, opened on someone’s computer, and then displayed on someone’s screen. What is to keep that person from taking a picture of the screen?? Or recording that music with a tape recorder?? Nothing is secure.

Photographers? Yes. And you are entitled to make the money that you deserve from your hard work. You are also entitled to the respect. However, you are trying to conjure up an idea for an age old problem. Aside from putting your work in locked room forever, there is no solution! My suggestion is to figure out how to use the issue to your advantage, rather than pondering how to “protect” your work. Otherwise, don’t post it online!

By: K Walker-Berman

K Walker-Berman — Fri, 18 May 2007 03:32:37 +0000

There was a magazine called “PEI” that used to be in the industry. I recall an article called “Copyright & Ethics” in one of them that suggested many ways to copy protect images. Reading your comments sounded a familiar ring. It might well be worth another read since the two people who wrote it were good.

By: Brian Auer

Brian Auer — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:16:20 +0000

I agree with you that the best protection we have is to only post low-res images on the web. I stick to 600 pixels or less in the largest dimension. It’s big enough to see what the image is about, but small enough that it would probably look like crud if enlarged.

I see where you’re going with the copy protection thing, but I don’t know how feasible it really is. You can always take a screenshot to get around clicking and saving deterrents. Even if that were taken care of, hackers have shown throughout history that almost nothing is impossible to keep safe. I think it would work for a while, until somebody found a way around it — the bad guys are just going to get smarter.