So called "copyright" pictures

Europe set it to 70 years, as that was the longest protection any of the member states had in place before it became common across the whole EU. I think it was Germany which already had the 70 year figure (it was 50 years in the UK).

--
Andrew Gabriel
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
Loading thread data ...

Approximately 11/23/03 18:11, Grant Edwards uttered for posterity:

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.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

Approximately 11/23/03 17:12, Phil uttered for posterity:

I have the Digimark as part of another app, and it does survive printing and scanning...with the disclaimer that print and scan were done at resolutions intended to preserve, not corrupt.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

[snip]

The copyright is the photographer's (I think you are in the UK...) unless you came to some other arrangement at the time you made the the contract with him. The photographer created the work of art - ie the photograph - and the copyright belongs to the creator not the subject of an image.

As for how they knew, I don't know...

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr     stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Stan Barr

Approximately 11/23/03 18:07, Lewin A.R.W. Edwards uttered for posterity:

? Photopaint just tells you that there is a watermark when the image is opened. And then you can do whatever you want with it. It doesn't appear to take much to corrupt the watermark, simple noise cancellation does it with one click. Adding noise gaussian and then a bit of blur does as well. Or simply convert from JPEG to Wavelet.

Which ones? Never seen a desktop graphics scanner yet with any currency detection built in. Is almost as common a method of evaluating scanners as an IT8 or a Shirley.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

Approximately 11/23/03 20:08, Bryan Hackney uttered for posterity:

This is a human issue. Any doofus can buy that paper at any decent camera or mail order store. Don't even have to pass a shutter test or know what an f-stop is.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

Approximately 11/24/03 03:37, Tim Shoppa uttered for posterity:

What professional film is available that a consumer can't buy? It might be expensive, as in first that consumer would have to spend some bucks on an 8x10 view camera and lenses, but after that, the film is available to anyone.

Wonder what escape clauses are available in the case of something as highly personal and emotional as wedding photo's in the case where the photographer has gone out of business and their inventory of master negatives and/or prints has not been picked up by another shop? Since I don't even watch lawyer shows, have no clue...but would have a hard time figuring out, by definition, who the plaintiff would be in such a case.

The OP can always pick up a $200-300 scanner and a $1000 Olympus or similar dye sublimation printer and create copies that will last longer than any silver-process version.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.
Reply to
Lon Stowell

... snip ...

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 (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

That is roughly what I thought might be going on. I couldn't remember the word "steganography" :-) However it seems too complex to apply in the printing process.

In part my message is a warning to people who are buying such services that they are not getting what they paid for.

As I pointed out somewhere in the original, the photographer has disappeared. All that is left is the prints. I suspect the algorithm is in the actual print paper proper, since I can hardly conceive of playing games in the optics of the camera and enlarger. Of the things mentioned I would lean towards the infra-red/ultra-violet etc. out of band watermarking of the paper.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Sure. If you read the contract, it assigns copyright to the employer.

If you hire a photographer and pay him strictly by the hour, and provide the equipment and materials, then the copyright probably belongs to you.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  NEWARK has been
                                  at               REZONED!! DES MOINES has
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

In the UK, and EU, it does hold true. Normally your contract of employment, which you agree to, would transfer the copyright of any work done in the course of your employment to your employer. My contract did although I wasn't employed to write software!

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr     stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Stan Barr

It does. However, works produced by an employee are assumed to be "works for hire" and belong to the employer. Works produced by a contractor, otoh, are assumed to be the property of the contractor. Contracts often include a provision that the copyright be assigned to the client, (in my contracts, usually after final payment is made :-)

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alan Balmer

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"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

To add insult to injury, Mr. Gates and Mi$uck are also working on something similar for computers (*no* joke). It's called something like "secure computers" or something... In such an environment, if the OS thinks you are using a "pirated" piece of software, it just deletes it...so much for "due process".

--

+----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Charles Richmond

But in USA it is definitely mouse-driven, as Mickey Mouse just celebrated 75 and is still copyrighted.

--
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Peshansky, Systems Manager, RUH, NY
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alexandre Peshansky

And it is also possible to write software under contract, where the contract states that you write the code and provide *only* the binary...and that you retain copyright and the right to distribute other binaries to other customers.

Presumably, this would affect the amount charged to the original customer...

--

+----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Charles Richmond

Exactly, but then you'd go to a "professional" shop to have copies made for you (or you would do them yourself!). You'd not go to the dumby-dumber photo copy shop.

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Pascal Bourguignon

Because you think that our burocrats aren't lobbied by Americans?

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Pascal Bourguignon

You can easily fight this: just don't fill the brains of your children with Mickey Mouse pudding. Fill them with your own culture and science!

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                          http://www.informatimago.com/   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Pascal Bourguignon

Whenever I remember it, I think of

formatting link

... a photograph of the kind of hardware alt.folklore.computers is most devoted to. ;-)

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com
Reply to
Eric Sosman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.