On 9/28/05, Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The problem as I see it with the watermark examples posted is that a
> competent thief can steal the picture, use judicious clone tool and
> cropping, and presto, the watermark is gone. To be effective, the watermark
> has to be large and close to dead-center, which makes it more annoying, but
> less easy to work around.
That's generally been my assessment too. If you want your watermark to
be unobtrusive it can be easily removed. If you want your watermark to
be harder to remove then it's usually annoying. Which is why I don't
bother with watermarking my photos online. Not that I mind unobtrusive
watermarks.
I've read a number of different hacks to try to "copy protect" your
images online but they all have numerous ways around them. The
fundamental problem is that in order for people to view the image you
have to send them the image in some form that's easily
decoded/decrypted by them. That makes it next to impossible to protect
the data.
I haven't looked into what digital watermarking offers in terms of
security. I suspect though that there would still be ways around it.
At the moment my priorities lie in making more images and sharing them
online, not figuring out ways to keep people from copying them.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|