So called "copyright" pictures

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
This is a weird crossposting combination, but I hope to find out
what is going on and possibly a cure.

The scenario - we have pictures of my daughters wedding, taken
several years ago.  She paid an exorbitant fee for the
photographer to take and print the various shots.  Incidentally
the photographer seems to have disappeared.

I attempted to get some copies of several shots in one of those
digital copying stations (this was in Walgrens).  It goes through
gyrations, and then announces that it will not copy professionally
created photographs.  I assume the detection is built in to the
image somehow, because I tried covering the backs with other
material to mask off the photographers name, etc., and the system
still refused.

I am assuming the problem is limited to those Kodak copying
stations, and a suitable scanner/printer combination would be able
to function.  

If anyone has copyright on these pictures it is my daughter, not
someone hired to record the event for a fee.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures


Quoted text here. Click to load it

:-)



--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 -- why are you talking about Siberia in this newsgroup?????
too many bad memorys

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not necessarily true.  If I commission a painting (in England), I get the
painting but not the copyright, which is subject to a separate agreement
else it remains with the "artist".  I'd have to get permission to copy my
"own" painting.

If you want to own the copyright, you have to pay for it.



Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would be intrigued to hear an explanation of how any
system can distinguish professional photographs from
amateur photographs? I cannot, for the life of me, think
how that could be done from the image alone???

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Very minor jumps in color, sort of an overlay, invisible
for us mortals. Information is encoded in this overlay.
Plus lots of redundancy to make it reliable.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)






Re: So called "copyright" pictures
This may be a strech, but have you tried looking at the photo under a
blacklight, or perhaps through a video camera?  Many camcorders can
see infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths of light outside of the human
eye range, just like the kodak scanner can.  I'd be interested to see
how this was pulled off...

-Jim


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, my eyes can tell the difference when I see good,
pro quality pictures.  Maybe some bad-ass DSP guys
came up with an algorithm to do what the eye does
for free?

To CBFalconer, I suppose one solution would be to scan
them in yourself with a nice 4800DPI scanner and copy the
pic onto one of the flash cards that cameras use now.  Then
you can use one of the camera shop's digital print stations
and perhaps, since the pic is coming from a CF or SD or
whatever card, they might not run the "pro scanning" algorithm
on it...

--Keith



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Approximately 11/23/03 15:36, Mike Harding uttered for posterity:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Trivial.  Steganography would be one way.  In a non-lossy
  format is as simple as encoding the data into the least
  significant bits of the image.  Works best with higher bit
  depths or images where there is little correlation between
  the higher bits and the least-sig ones.  In a lossy format
  such as jpeg, the data is added in the non-lossy compression
  stage done after the lossy encoding.  Defeatable with any
  image editing app just by suitable edits of the image.

  Several digital watermark systems are also available as
  software, some a bit cleverer and harder to eliminage than
  steganography.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:45:58 GMT, Lon Stowell

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm confused. Is the OP trying to copy some sort of
digitally derived image or a "normal" photograph
taken with 35mm or plate film?

I can certainly see how a digital image could be
"watermarked" but I'm still unsure how this could be
done during a normal developing/printing process
with the required degree of reliability required to
enable detection X years later and not hit lots of
false positives?

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you sure it is nothing mundane such as the size of the
picture, the aspect ratio, some sort of special matte
or ???

++Don
e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Mike Harding (mike snipped-for-privacy@nixspamhotmail.com) writes:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
And since up till a few years ago, there were no digital cameras,
nor even a hint that they would exist, and film was taken out of
the camera, processed with chemicals, and transferred to paper,
there was no point where such a digital signature could be embedded,
nor reason for doing so.

I'm still puzzling over why this question is posted to
comp.arch.embedded and alt.folklore.computers  Neither has
anything remotely connected with this.

  Michael


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Relax.  It's on topic if the detection algorithm is embodied in an embedded
computer.




Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
nor reason for doing so.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Relax.  Give it a day or so, and then we'll know what they are up to.

And give it a week or so, and we'll have an MSP430 crack for it :-)

--Keith



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's off-topic and all, but CB has been around and
contributed to this group forever.  He/she is among
friends and has something to talk about.  Nothing wrong
with asking the question.  The fact that there's been
a slew of interesting replies tells me that most readers
found it of interest and non-inappropriate.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The processing is done by an embedded machine, so c.a.e may well
hold some of the designers.  a.f.c has virtually no rules, and an
extremely wide range of knowledge, some of it useful.  They just
seemed like the most likely groups, of those in which I
participate, to supply some answers.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

He was talking about prints being scanned.  That's about as far
from "non-lossy" as you can get.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And they work on prints?!

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Hey, LOOK!! A pair of
                                  at               SIZE 9 CAPRI PANTS!! They
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 24 Nov 2003 02:11:45 GMT, the renowned Grant Edwards

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wouldn't be surprised- they are pretty robust on digital photos, you
have to add a visible amount of noise (which can then be smoothed and
sharpened), and cropping doesn't affect it, but we don't really have
any solid evidence that this is what's actually happening.

It might be something really low tech like the IR response of the
print paper, which I have a vague recollection was used-- to prevent
photocopying of sensitive documents (?)..

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Approximately 11/23/03 18:11, Grant Edwards uttered for posterity:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  Perhaps someone dithered one of those encrypted FAX style
  patterns into the negative.  How this would be done is left
  as an exercise for the student.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:49 GMT, the renowned Lon Stowell

Quoted text here. Click to load it

In this case, it appears to be a feature of the photographic paper
used to print the photo.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline