 Dennis Badovinac |
Invinsible Watermark to protect your images . Does anyone know of a way to make a photograph lose image quality when it is scanned? I am not interested in a copyrite(they don't protect your work).I want something like an invisible watermark that only shows up on a scanned copy,basically making the copy worthless.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Copyrights protect your work legally and will prevent most (honest) people from using it (when they might have otherwise). But I really don't know what you want. You want to make it so that if somebody scans your picture it won't look good? Listen, a scanner picks up the same information your eyes do, and there is no "invisible watermark" possible. Different types of paper? Maybe that would help. Perhaps metallic or glossy paper produces unusable scans?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dennis Badovinac |
Well,I will say it again then"A copyrite does not protect your image from being scanned"any one with a scanner and printer can reproduce your images"copyrites will not stop some or most people of course that is debateable.I want something that only shows up (invisible to the eye) when scanned.O.K. different types of paper is a possible option that I will look into.Listen there is an invisible watermark or paper type that does what I am asking.I just need to know what it is and I do appreciate your help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Dennis, as Ariel points out, there is no "invisible marking" that would magically appear on prints made from scans of your image. That said, you could make prints at relatively low resolutions, like 75dpi (perhaps less) - when this is scanned the scanner picks up the pixels/dots individually and thus reprints lose quality (like any second generation analog process would). But this is not a true preventative measure. THe other approach is to put a watermark in the image, which would be visible to the viewers' eyes but thus make it unlikely that other nefarious types would profit from your work. And by the way, it is spelled "copyright".
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Get that that spray can stuff that you coat your license plate with that causes a glare to hide your plate number when those traffic cameras try to take your picture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Do you still believe that BS, Greg? Anyway, Dennis, the guys are right: what you want won't work. 'Steganography' might go some way to protect your digital images. You could include all manner of (copyright) information invisibly in the file, for you to make visible again when the need arises. http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/29583 is a steganography shareware app (for Windows) that claims to do the trick. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Shawn Wilson |
Ariel hit the nail on the head. If a scanner picks it up, your eye will pick it up. Unless it's just so small that you don't notice it with your eye, but then most likely even if it gets scanned and re-printed, it will still be just as small and just as invisible to the naked eye. Glossy paper or reflective things like the license place spray do work for video cameras or snapping pictures with a flash from a distance. For a scanner though, they may not do much. My scanner for example uses an indirect light so even the most shiny surface doesn't cause a glare. Personally, I've scanned plenty of images for various reasons and the only images that I've had a semi-hard time scanning were newspaper images or images in a book because they use that dot and circle print process and the scanner picks that up where your eye doesn't so much. This is a losing battle and one of quickly diminishing returns. You cannot protect your work 100%, that is impossible. Once you release an image, whether it be in print or digitally, it can be copied and reproduced at a near equal quality. Regardless of how an image is scanned, there is some quality loss. Especially if you then try to make a print much larger than the original. You can scan at as high a resolution as you like, but the resulting image will be exponentially worse as it gets bigger. The only saving grace we have as content providers is that these copies will be of sub-standard quality. A real customer of ours will demand the best quality and isn't the kind of person stealing images. Those people that would steal your image and be happy with the quality of their copy are people who if you prevented their theft would not then decide to buy it because they couldn't steal it, they'd move on. I'm not saying that there's no harm in them stealing the image, just that going to a lot of effort on your part will not increase your sales. Much like the music and movie industry being mad at people making 'illegal' copies of media. If it was totally impossible to copy these things, they think everyone would buy them. That simply is not true. If the best we could do was use a camcorder to copy a TV showing a movie, then the people who steal movies would be happy with that. They steal because the REFUSE to pay or simply have a collection habit. A very large percentage of the underground movie community spends 10 times more money at movie theatres than the rest of the world. They just want to also have a home copy and if it was impossible to get, they would not go buy the DVD, they'd go without. I'm sorry, that's another issue, but the point is that as content providers we should take steps to protect our work, like copyrights, that would allow us to put up a fight if and when we find a violation of the law. Beyond that, you're spinning your wheels for no gain. We're in this for pleasure and some of us to make a living. Don't destroy your fun by fighting an impossible battle, and don't focus your energy on things that don't effect your pocket book. I want to give credit here, but forgot his name. Somebody here says "take it light" and in this case, it's simply the best advice.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||