Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.80.93.19

Forum Moderators: not2easy

Message Too Old, No Replies

Calls For JPeg To Have Digital Rights Management Protection

     
9:21 am on Oct 16, 2015 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:25467
votes: 742


Some of you already know that it's possible to protect images with DRM on jpeg 2000, but it's not the case with JPeg files in general.

According to the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPeg) committee it is considering proposals to protect legacy images.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation does not support this move, yet there will be many originators that would like protection.
Our presentation explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works, points out how DRM can infringe on the user's legal rights over a copyright work (such as fair use and quotation), and warns how it places security researchers at legal risk as well as making standardization more difficult. It doesn't even help to preserve the value of copyright works, since DRM-protected works and devices are less valued by users. There's No DRM in JPEG—Let's Keep It That Way [eff.org]


I'm sure it's never going to stop theft, so it will probably only stop the causal user.

What do you think of the idea of DRM on JPeg files?
9:38 am on Oct 16, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:8565
votes: 667


You ask much, dear engine!

I might reply that I support such a move as I am an artist and photographer and damn weary of having the fruits of my labor assimilated in "fair use" at the same resolution of images I try to market for dollars. I might reply that if it's on the web it's fair game by gum, and that's still wrong to the creator, of course.

The problem with the argument offered in OP is LEGACY images. Who determines that? That said, if there is a future way to DRM images that does not break the web or piss off the user I'm for it. I'm also for providing a reasonable better than thumbnail of same content while protecting the dollar image in larger size.

After all, web wise, we all want pics, but we also want our pages to load quick and lean. Let the creator determine the "fair use image size" and protect his money side and let's get on with doing the web and not profit unfairly from the image creator. That kind of DRM I am in favor of. Sadly, it won't work that way as the next thing out of the gate is "DRM KILLER HERE" "IMAGES FOR FREE" "ILLUSTRATIONS FOR YOUR SITE" will be the next round of hacks.
4:25 pm on Oct 16, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3404
votes: 275


tangor -- Aparently there is already a way to stop people from copying your images, because occasionally I come across a website that prevents me from doing it. I don't know how it's done myself, but there must be some script or code of some kind that can be used. So you might want to look into it.
5:22 pm on Oct 16, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:6888
votes: 314


There are lots of ways..none of them defeat print screen / or screen capture..
3:27 am on Oct 17, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:8565
votes: 667


@aristotle: I'm not a newbie. :)

My money images have been protected for years, however, as Leosghost remarked, there are just some things that can't be dealt with it. WORSE there's always that user who ignores the sales contract and shares the image anyway. That's usually the problem I have to deal with.

HOWEVER, I hope/see that DRM for jpg might have a very useful side effect for webmasters as regards copyright and "who's image is it" and "who did it first" as far as search engines, et al are concerned.

If a creator can RELIABLY stamp and protect their image upon jpg file creation, then copyright can be protected and infringers can be pursued. It would also provide a way to identify and locate those who ignore sales contracts and use/share that image for a purpose other than contracted. That would be a game changer in more ways than one. Something like that would be damn beneficial to the image creators.

It might even put Getty out of business. :)
5:32 am on Oct 17, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:2774
votes: 114


Bad idea, means one vendor will have a hold over all these images, will cause huge interoperability problems....

Stupid idea, will not work, just suits some people's interest.

@tangor, which you want would be better achieved by a non-visible, hard to remove, watermarking system.
6:09 am on Oct 17, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:8565
votes: 667


@graeme_p: With all respect, some of us live in the real world. :)

Bad idea, means one vendor will have a hold over all these images, will cause huge interoperability problems...


As it should be, the VENDOR (I assume mfg) will part out to distros/customers/sites as needed ... and that gets rid of the "duplicate" krapola seen all too often on our favorite se. Best part, the vendor/holder provides the BEST IMAGE for all to use and that levels the playing field in a flash (and I don't mean player). As for interoperability, not sure what that means because anyone would be free to take their own pic of somethingwhatever and post that AS THEIR OWN CREATION.

As for CREATORS of images it might mean they finally control their own work and can develop a revenue, just like all of us want our sites to do the same (and are losing it as G in particular puts our good stuff in Knowledge Graph and all that other suck the life out of you since it does not have DRM).
8:52 pm on Oct 17, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2006
posts:1531
votes: 100


Me daydreaming... sounds nice and I hope something really good and practical comes out of this. Some pictures are difficult, some a extreme journey to capture! and it's very sad to see your own work posted somewhere else, not only without your credits (free but as: stolen) but even worse with someone else name.

It's been possible for years to put your copyright on the image, even to set a digital mark/sign that it's invisible while keeping your credits. Scripts to block people downloading it are just half mile away (it's actually pretty easy to get around) and other scripts to implement hot linking are also just half a mile away (too easy) not to forget the screen capture and cropping the images in a diff way.

But I don't have doubts it could be done with technology on the reader side (browsers), some sort of true hotlinking helper. Why? well, the image shouldn't appear on the screen unless is called from X domain or perhaps IP, and the image shouldn't allow screen capture, it should appear blank or just lots of noise. It's funny, I have my cellphone with an app to record all my calls (too many tech details I cannot miss when someone tells me on the line) so, one day I discovered something interesting while talking to X embassy: it doesn't matter if they call me or if I call them, that app never records a single noise! ok is too much to ask something like that but it's worth to add to the wishlist.
1:03 pm on Oct 19, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 4, 2004
posts:888
votes: 1


Aparently there is already a way to stop people from copying your images


There is various tricks, for example you use the image as background in a <div> and then overlay it with transparent .gif. The user right clicks and saves the the transparent .gif.... In the end they are all tricks and will only slow down or stop Joe Blow. They will not stop me. :) ... nor will they stop anyone else that is determined even if they have no technical skill.

I will predict this will fail also, I don't know how many billions was spent on developing the protection for Blu Ray but it failed almost immediately. It was actually very interesting to follow, the story starts out with a guy that did not have a HDCP compliant computer and wanted to watch his Blu Ray disc on it. He found a minor flaw in one piece of software, posted it on a video forum that had hundreds of very knowledgeable people and it ballooned from there. It's very difficult to compete against the collective knowledge and intelligence of hundreds or even thousands of people if they are determined to break into your copyright protection.
5:47 am on Oct 26, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:2774
votes: 114


@tangor thanks for keeping the discussion polite (not). Being rude and adding a smiley does not change anything.

Can you tell me who this mythical absolutely trustworthy DRM vendor is who will always do the right thing?

No creators of images will not control the system. DRM systems need to be centralised, whoever has that central control will control the system. DRM requires control of the client and the generation of the content.

DRM really on serves the purposes of big businesses able to make deals with each other.

[plus.google.com...]
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members