Re: Re: GD Watermark Question-

> > > > Even the stenography has its flaws. Opening the image in an image editor, then doing a > > select all and pasting as a new image would remove any hidden meta info, and saving a couple of > > times as a jpeg would destroy any detailed information without distorting the photo (assuming it was > > a photo and not a diagram which would look awful as a jpeg) > > > > I'm not sure if you ever had this at your school, but back when I was a kid, once a > > year class photos would be taken, as well as photos by yourself, even if you didn't want them. > > To ensure people paid for the proper photo, a large watermark was sprawled across the photo. It took > > a little while, but with a decent image editor you could pull out that watermark from the scanned in > > photo and have a good quality photo without paying for it. I'm not saying we should all do this > > (the photographer needs to be paid somehow!) but I'm saying it's possible if you have the > > time, inclination and means. > > > > Actually Ash, properly done stenography is actually embedded it the pixels - not the metadata > and can be placed such that only when the image is reduced to x degraded percent is it lost which > removes the value of the full res image. > > However, the power of real stenography for copyrights (and not for spying) is about the fact > that the real user uses the image and if it gets copies by someone the stenography copyright > signatures remain and the copier doesn't know about them > > Tom > > I know this is getting a little off-topic here, but surely the way a jpeg destroys data in an image would destroy the stenography information too? To the human eye all would appear normal, but the copyright info would be lost? I don't know much about this sort of thing, so I'm making assumptions here. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk