Forum Moderators: not2easy
As for detecting them - well, you need to run it against the different software. Never heard of any automated tool that does it for you.
Maybe it would help to know more about what you are doing. The two possibilities that come to mind are:
1) You want to verify that files uploaded by users don't have watermarks (or that they do have them?), or
2) You want to add watermarks so that you can detect whether or not copying has taken place.
thus i need to borrow them
I always taught my kids that using something that doesn't belong to you without permission is stealing.
In other words, they couldn't borrow my tools unless they asked first. Anything less was theft in our house.
Why not ask if you can use the images. My experience with asking has generally been positive.
WBF
Something more than images are missing from the thread author's business.
"I just need to... borrow... your affiliate links/revenue. How's that sound?"
"I just need to... take this content... so I can get my own site off the ground."
Thanks for the reminder of how the bottom of the barrel thinks.
How can I detect if an image has an embedded watermark?
Trouble is, I don't want to wait on my mechanic to tune up the car for me.
Anyone here know how I can find out where is300 hides the car keys? Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I only expect to use is300's car for a couple of weeks ...that makes it ok right?
unbelievable indeed
Yes watermarks can be detected ...in most grafic apps such as Photoshop, PSP etc you hit detect watermark and if the image includes an embedded watermark from one of the big services such as Digimarc then it will say so ...you will also have the chance to go to the records and contact the artist ( such as myself ..I do use Digimarc for the images likely to attract theives ) to ask if you can use their images ...
If they refuse it's stealing and you hopefully will face a lawsuit with all that entails : )
I include other also "embeds " of my own ....and if you can strip these out and use the images then you would be someone that some of us here probably already know from our previous lives as cr@kerz or h@ckerz and would not be asking such a dumb question ...
just because everyone wears a whitish hat here doesn't mean ....
So not only can you be found when you steal and prosecuted ..but you might even get your server "smooched" for you depending on whom you steal from .....
Even with tricky scripts to protect images like I use in some places ..as ronin pointed out when he showed me he could still "steal" one of my images the other day 'cos I was too lazy to "lock the backdoor" ...he still left a trace in my logs ....
So if he wasn't a friend I could have eventually found what he did with it and where he might have used it ..
Stealing images is unethical..
.can get you in court very quick ...
and you never do know the tech level of who you are messing with ....some of the tackiest sites are run by some of the best hackers on the planet ....or their close family ....
There are people on these WebmasterWorld boards who know more about programming than I ever will ..and than you could ever imagine ....
thats my pontificate on the subject ...
want to give me the last word mods .....?
Claim "fair use" and give "bigdave" as the reference .
You never did bother to try and comprehend my point, did you?
Fair Use is a right, it is not taking anything from the creator of the work.
But Copyright grants rights to the creator, and violating those rights is wrong, unethical and illegal. Fair Use is *not* a violation of those rights (by definition) and is in no way unethical. Denying someone their Fair Use rights is as unethical as violating Copyright.
What he is suggesting is in no way Fair Use, therefore I do not support it.
If they refuse it's stealing and you hopefully will face a lawsuit with all that entails : )
Technically it is not stealing, it is infringement. Civil, not criminal.
Stealing implies theft, and that is simply not the case. But you are correct that this would be an obvious case of infringement that could, and should, result in a lawsuit and a finding for the plaintiff.
As for invisible watermarks, they really don't seem to be of much value to me. Can someone explain to me what additional value they give you in court?
The only thing I can think of is if someone radically tweaks your image so that it no longer resembles the original in any recognizeable way, and you would still be able to show that it is a derivative work.
But what this clown is talking about is just straight up using an image as-is. There is no need for a watermark to be able to prove it is a copy. I don't even see why he is worrying about them. It is infringing whether or not there is a watermark.