PKR
Veteran
From Petapixel/Google
AI Can Easily Erase Photo Watermarks: Here’s How to Protect Yours
https://petapixel.com/2017/08/18/ai-can-easily-erase-photo-watermarks-heres-protect/
This is a problem for any who generate useable imagery. Many who lift images from the web and other sources feel they aren't doing anything wrong. I've actually had some people demand (in person) larger files of my images that were found on the web.
I don't watermark in the common practice. Here's what I do with the few images that are necessary on the web. My agent (a PhotoShop wiz) and I came up with this. It will hold up in a US court. All images have a copyright notice.
For example, take an image of a cruse ship in port. The ship is surrounded by water on 3 sides. We take a patch of water, with small wave crests, and replace it with a patch copied from another area of the image. So, that identifiable patch exists in more than one place. The removed patch is saved as evidence along with the original image.
When looking at the photo, the alteration is unnoticeable, if executed well. Knowing that the work has been done, and about where it was done on the photo, I've hade trouble finding these alterations. It doesn't alter the overall image in any way as to it's visual intent. This process carries on to prints of the work.
If we go to court over a theft, we can produce the original, the patch removed, and the finished altered image that was released. The thief can't show the patch or the original image. It's now common in my area to find work lifted, altered in PS, and copyrighted under the thief's name as unique.
I hope my little watermark process helps some of you. I would especially do this to images YOU KNOW will be lifted.
AI Can Easily Erase Photo Watermarks: Here’s How to Protect Yours
https://petapixel.com/2017/08/18/ai-can-easily-erase-photo-watermarks-heres-protect/
This is a problem for any who generate useable imagery. Many who lift images from the web and other sources feel they aren't doing anything wrong. I've actually had some people demand (in person) larger files of my images that were found on the web.
I don't watermark in the common practice. Here's what I do with the few images that are necessary on the web. My agent (a PhotoShop wiz) and I came up with this. It will hold up in a US court. All images have a copyright notice.
For example, take an image of a cruse ship in port. The ship is surrounded by water on 3 sides. We take a patch of water, with small wave crests, and replace it with a patch copied from another area of the image. So, that identifiable patch exists in more than one place. The removed patch is saved as evidence along with the original image.
When looking at the photo, the alteration is unnoticeable, if executed well. Knowing that the work has been done, and about where it was done on the photo, I've hade trouble finding these alterations. It doesn't alter the overall image in any way as to it's visual intent. This process carries on to prints of the work.
If we go to court over a theft, we can produce the original, the patch removed, and the finished altered image that was released. The thief can't show the patch or the original image. It's now common in my area to find work lifted, altered in PS, and copyrighted under the thief's name as unique.
I hope my little watermark process helps some of you. I would especially do this to images YOU KNOW will be lifted.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I am curious why you share an 'image theft' post since you never share any online pics. At least not here. Cheers, P.
PKR
Veteran
I've never posted any images here. Actually, I don't post them anywhere. One agent has some on a couple of websites.
I've had problems with theft over the past years and keep my image visibility as low as possible. Posting my stuff to this, or any other site, returns nothing to me. It only opens the potential for problems that I don't want. I shared the watermark process, as stated, in the hope it might help others. There are a few on here who earn their living with imagery they create. It was done primarily for them.
presspass
filmshooter
We have an ongoing problem with image theft from the website our weekly newspapers maintains. We make the files as small as possible so they cannot be easily enlarged, but we still see them on individual sites. I have never posted my B&W film images on any site for this reason. That's really the simplest way to keep them from being stolen.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I always think that images are the lifeblood of any photographic forum.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Good advice given.
In my case, if someone steals my picture, i have the negatives
In my case, if someone steals my picture, i have the negatives
Aristophanes
Well-known
On ANY forum there are more words than images.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I didn't suggest that ..... just that images are an important part of that mix .
PKR
Veteran
Well, different for different folks, I guess. I've been here on and off for several years and maybe spent a total of 10 minutes in my 2 visits to the gallery in that time. So, it does nothing for me. Just my use of time. I see photos all day long, most days.
benlees
Well-known
I like that: "useable imagery". Orwell would give you a wink and a nudge. Or maybe a high 5.
PKR
Veteran
Ha, funny. I think Blair would have come up with something more.. "ominously creative".
If your stuff isn't "useable", it's safe, no one want's it. I guess that's one kind of critique? If no one is ripping you off, you're not cutting it.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Not if you believe that "A picture is worth a thousand words..."
To the "OP" PKR...there is the "Photos of Nothing Special" Thread..you could post your stuff that no one wants to steal in there...if you have any...
dmr
Registered Abuser
PKR
Veteran
Well, it's obvious that the image theft strategy is working!
Seems to be working. No problems, that I know of, in a couple of years. Pulling down my site and only using FTP when necessary, and then removing files once the client has them, has worked. Files are left on the FTP for just a day or two, and those are small. Big stuff is delivered on a optical disk, thumb drive or portable HDD. I think most of the photographers I know deliver this way now. In my experience, clients are much more paranoid about image theft than most photographers.
The lack of web exposure has had no negative effect, for me, that I know of.
PKR
Veteran
Thanks for the sobering view point...
Do some nice photos of cooking hardware. A selection of well photographed measuring cups is good. Leave them up for a few months and i'll wager you will find them used on cooking/food blogs in no time.
I recall, you've seen one of the gallery sites with some of my stuff? That "decorative" stuff is in demand. Travel photographers must have lots of problems.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Thx for that info! Good to know this stuff.
Huss
Veteran
Thank you for posting practical information PKR.
Larry H-L
Well-known
PKR, I am curious to know the approximate pixel dimensions of your small "patch."
Sounds like a great idea if you ever have to go to court over image theft, thanks for sharing.
Sounds like a great idea if you ever have to go to court over image theft, thanks for sharing.
PKR
Veteran
It varies with the image and what might be appropriate to substitute. For example in a cityscape containing an old factory building with multi pane windows, a window pane might be removed and is replaced with a copied one. If a cloudy sky is in a shot, a patch of sky is copied. So, the patch size is small, but big enough to be obvious under a minimal level of forensics. In the case of the water mentioned earlier, it was quite big, as it blended better. I'm guessing here as image sizes vary, but maybe 2-3%, in some cases, much more.
I haven't done this yet with a portrait as most of my subjects are living. One popular one is of a famous guy who passed on some time ago. I did a google search for "photo" under his name and the image came up several times. The photo is unique in its layout, and easy to spot. It was publicly released on a gallery site. I think the scrapers found it. It's unique enough that I don't think anyone will lift it. It would be too obvious.
In one photo I just removed some foliage in the foreground and replaced it with water. This one was both a watermark and a serious modification of the image. I don't generally get this drastic, but it improved the image a lot, so I let it go.
Edit: I got curious and did the same name search on the portrait. It didn't come up at all this time. I don't know why? I think it came up twice in the first page of thumbnails last time. Got me.