Digimarc special offer (Only until end of year)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Aaron Queenan, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. If your considering getting a Digimarc ID so that you can watermark your
    images, now is a good time to get one, because they have an offer where you
    get to watermark 5000 images (instead of 1000) for half the usual price.
    According to their web site, the offer is only until the end of this year.

    http://www.digimarc.com/products/imagebridge/signup/default.asp

    Regards,
    Aaron Queenan.
     
    Aaron Queenan, Dec 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron Queenan

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    What a thrill. Wow wow. I'm exited. I guess that means they actually are
    still in business - but no healthier than ever.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Aaron Queenan" <> wrote in message
    news:bspq42$4mi$...
    > If your considering getting a Digimarc ID so that you can watermark your
    > images, now is a good time to get one, because they have an offer where

    you
    > get to watermark 5000 images (instead of 1000) for half the usual price.
    > According to their web site, the offer is only until the end of this year.
    >
    > http://www.digimarc.com/products/imagebridge/signup/default.asp
    >
    > Regards,
    > Aaron Queenan.
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aaron Queenan

    Guest

    "Aaron Queenan" <> wrote:

    > If your considering getting a Digimarc ID so that you can watermark your
    > images, now is a good time to get one, because they have an offer where you
    > get to watermark 5000 images (instead of 1000) for half the usual price.


    Are the services of the IP lawyer included in this offer? Watermarks
    -- even assuming they can't be easily disabled (like all known schemes
    can) -- are pretty useless unless you have the money to "defend" them.
    And I doubt the offered savings will pay for even an initial
    consultation.
     
    , Dec 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Aaron Queenan

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    wrote:

    > "Aaron Queenan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> If your considering getting a Digimarc ID so that you can watermark
    >> your images, now is a good time to get one, because they have an
    >> offer where you get to watermark 5000 images (instead of 1000) for
    >> half the usual price.

    >
    > Are the services of the IP lawyer included in this offer? Watermarks
    > -- even assuming they can't be easily disabled (like all known schemes
    > can) -- are pretty useless unless you have the money to "defend" them.
    > And I doubt the offered savings will pay for even an initial
    > consultation.


    A digital watermark is far from being useless. It will give you undisputable
    *proof* that your image was STOLEN from your website. Digimarc
    is terrific, it even checks the web on a regular basis to see if someone is
    displaying your stuff on another website. The price is still high though,
    but if more people decided to adopt the system, it could go down to
    a more affordable level.

    BTW, there is no easy way to "disable" Digimarc, short of completely
    destroying any semblance of quality. Besides, the crook who steals your
    image DOES NOT KNOW it's digitally watermarked. The only drawback
    of Digimarc is that it adds a little noise. Actually the stronger the
    protection,
    the more obvious the noise is. But I still believe it's an acceptable
    trade-off.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 29, 2003
    #4
  5. Aaron Queenan

    Guest

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote:

    > A digital watermark is far from being useless.


    I said that without an "IP lawyer", and the ability to pay him,
    watermarks are quite useless. But even then, there is a problem ...

    > It will give you undisputable
    > *proof* that your image was STOLEN from your website. Digimarc
    > is terrific, it even checks the web on a regular basis to see if someone is
    > displaying your stuff on another website. The price is still high though,
    > but if more people decided to adopt the system, it could go down to
    > a more affordable level.


    Why should more people adopt the system? 99.99999% of all images on
    the web have a net value of about zero, and the creators of these
    images know it, and the IP lawyers who these creators may contact know
    it. Given this, it doesn't take much to figure out that spending
    money watermarking these images is just a financial sinkhole.

    But even _if_ your images are valuable, most people are simply unable
    to foot the financial and temporal bill to defend their works. The
    mighty Philip Greenspun -- not a poor guy, and one who knows how to
    take a picture -- knows the story:

    http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/litigation/philosophy.html

    His approach, in fact, works fairly well simply because he doesn't
    waste time, money and image quality on expensive, silly, watermarking
    schemes. See:

    http://philip.greenspun.com/copyright/

    [Check the "weasels" page in particular: no watermarks were required
    to establish incontrovertible proof of "theft" of his images. Fat lot
    of good such proof did him, eh? What would watermarking them add in
    his situation?]

    > BTW, there is no easy way to "disable" Digimarc, short of completely
    > destroying any semblance of quality.


    Many claims about digital watermarks are made; to my knowledge none
    of them have withstood serious scrutiny from crytographic experts.
    You can google up references easily enough.
     
    , Dec 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Aaron Queenan

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    My methods are simple.
    1)Nothing goes on the web without some cropping. If I have to prove it is
    my picture I have more of it than the thief.
    2)Nothing goes on the web more than 346 pixels tall. Someone can steal it
    for their website but there is no way they can make a reasonable print of
    it.
    3) Nothing goes on the web as a high quality jpeg. It's all under 50%
    4)Every image is "sliced". It would have to be downloaded in pieces and
    re-assembled.

    Anyone who is willing to go through that much work has got a picture for
    the old website. If I catch them at it they will have a lot of grief too.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote:
    >
    > > A digital watermark is far from being useless.

    >
    > I said that without an "IP lawyer", and the ability to pay him,
    > watermarks are quite useless. But even then, there is a problem ...
    >
    > > It will give you

    undisputable
    > > *proof* that your image was STOLEN from your website. Digimarc
    > > is terrific, it even checks the web on a regular basis to see if someone

    is
    > > displaying your stuff on another website. The price is still high

    though,
    > > but if more people decided to adopt the system, it could go down to
    > > a more affordable level.

    >
    > Why should more people adopt the system? 99.99999% of all images on
    > the web have a net value of about zero, and the creators of these
    > images know it, and the IP lawyers who these creators may contact know
    > it. Given this, it doesn't take much to figure out that spending
    > money watermarking these images is just a financial sinkhole.
    >
    > But even _if_ your images are valuable, most people are simply unable
    > to foot the financial and temporal bill to defend their works. The
    > mighty Philip Greenspun -- not a poor guy, and one who knows how to
    > take a picture -- knows the story:
    >
    > http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/litigation/philosophy.html
    >
    > His approach, in fact, works fairly well simply because he doesn't
    > waste time, money and image quality on expensive, silly, watermarking
    > schemes. See:
    >
    > http://philip.greenspun.com/copyright/
    >
    > [Check the "weasels" page in particular: no watermarks were required
    > to establish incontrovertible proof of "theft" of his images. Fat lot
    > of good such proof did him, eh? What would watermarking them add in
    > his situation?]
    >
    > > BTW, there is no easy way to "disable" Digimarc, short of completely
    > > destroying any semblance of quality.

    >
    > Many claims about digital watermarks are made; to my knowledge none
    > of them have withstood serious scrutiny from crytographic experts.
    > You can google up references easily enough.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Aaron Queenan

    JC Dill Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:02:12 GMT, "Tony Spadaro"
    <> wrote:

    >My methods are simple.
    > 1)Nothing goes on the web without some cropping. If I have to prove it is
    >my picture I have more of it than the thief.


    Ditto

    > 2)Nothing goes on the web more than 346 pixels tall.


    Why/how did you decide on 346 pixels tall? What is the max width for
    a landscape layout photo image for the web?

    >Someone can steal it
    >for their website but there is no way they can make a reasonable print of
    >it.
    > 3) Nothing goes on the web as a high quality jpeg. It's all under 50%


    Ditto

    > 4)Every image is "sliced". It would have to be downloaded in pieces and
    >re-assembled.


    What software do you use for this?

    > Anyone who is willing to go through that much work has got a picture for
    >the old website. If I catch them at it they will have a lot of grief too.


    Ahyep!

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Aaron Queenan

    Guest

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote:

    > [cropping, sampling, low-quality JPEG]


    Take this to its logical conclusion, add in some escrow agency and
    some protocol finesse, and you have the "Street Performer Protocol":

    http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/

    "Copyright" is toast in an era where the cost of a bit-copy is
    essentially zero. Not even the RIAA or the MPAA can change the
    character of physical law. Those that adopt measures like the SPP
    will prosper in the end.

    > [sliced]


    Curiously, segmenting images like this is a classic attack against
    watermarking schemes ...
     
    , Dec 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Aaron Queenan

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    All pictures are measured only in height. Currently 346 pixels, which
    gives me room for a bit of area around the picture and navigation buttons on
    the bottom, and I let the width fall where it may - so long as it is under
    about 740 pixels. This is a good size for 600x800 screens. Those with higher
    settings get a pretty small picture, but still usable to 1200x1600. I'm not
    so hot on the web that I feel the need to do any larger.
    I use ImageReady for slicing and various other operations - it is more or
    less part of Photoshop. As I understand it there is an image slicer built
    into Photo-Paint now, and it is about 1/6th the price of Photoshop.
    Here is a typical page:
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/tvag/tvag03/tvag0302.html
    and here is a page with a panoramic image (although it was actually a cut
    down from normal 35mm negative:
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/gallery1/scity/scity11.html
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "JC Dill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:02:12 GMT, "Tony Spadaro"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >My methods are simple.
    > > 1)Nothing goes on the web without some cropping. If I have to prove it

    is
    > >my picture I have more of it than the thief.

    >
    > Ditto
    >
    > > 2)Nothing goes on the web more than 346 pixels tall.

    >
    > Why/how did you decide on 346 pixels tall? What is the max width for
    > a landscape layout photo image for the web?
    >
    > >Someone can steal it
    > >for their website but there is no way they can make a reasonable print of
    > >it.
    > > 3) Nothing goes on the web as a high quality jpeg. It's all under 50%

    >
    > Ditto
    >
    > > 4)Every image is "sliced". It would have to be downloaded in pieces

    and
    > >re-assembled.

    >
    > What software do you use for this?
    >
    > > Anyone who is willing to go through that much work has got a picture

    for
    > >the old website. If I catch them at it they will have a lot of grief too.

    >
    > Ahyep!
    >
    > jc
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 31, 2003
    #9
  10. Aaron Queenan

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:02:12 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony Spadaro"
    <> wrote:

    > 4)Every image is "sliced". It would have to be downloaded in pieces and
    >re-assembled.


    No need to go to that trouble. Just use any screen capture utility. I agree
    with all your other steps, this one is just wasted time, IMO.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 31, 2003
    #10
  11. Aaron Queenan

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    It will slow down the person who tries for just the picture - and there
    would be editing necessary after doing the screen capture. Howevver, the
    first two steps - small size and low quality are the main thing.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Ed Ruf" <EG*nospam*> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:02:12 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony Spadaro"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > 4)Every image is "sliced". It would have to be downloaded in pieces

    and
    > >re-assembled.

    >
    > No need to go to that trouble. Just use any screen capture utility. I

    agree
    > with all your other steps, this one is just wasted time, IMO.
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    > http://members.cox.net/egruf
    > See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    > http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul

    Copyright my entire site? Digimarc ? Other?

    Paul, Sep 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    354
    Ed Ruf
    Sep 20, 2005
  2. JC Dill
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    JC Dill
    Dec 29, 2006
  3. TO
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    856
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    576
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    505
Loading...

Share This Page