Digital Pictures and proof of ownership.

[Jay Cazel]

The other day I was going over some of the storm pictures I took with my old Cannon AE-1. I put the negitives away for safe keeping since I had all the old film prints scanned into my computer. Then I was thinking....What proof ( other than a water mark) do I have of a digital picture that I actualy took the picture? I mean with film you have the negitive, with digital nothing. I asked this question to a friend of mine and he said that some photographers might keep the photo's on the memory cards and never delete them but I thought that might get expensive. With all that happend with Mike H I was just wondering what someone can do to prove that the picture is thiers.

 

[Scott Olson]

Having a higher resolution of the picture would be pretty good proof that the picture originated from you. Having it in the RAW format on the memory card could help too but im pretty sure some savy people could find a way to mimick that.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Originally posted by Scott Olson
Having a higher resolution of the picture would be pretty good proof that the picture originated from you.

I agree... People rarely put the full-resolution pics on the web, so that' be pretty convincing. In addition, an inexperienced person may forget about EXIF information, which can be used to store your name, camera, date, time, etc. EXIF information is editable, so it'd be easy to get around, but I don't think the casual thief would think much about it. I'd imagine that you could also register photos with the Copyright office as 'artistic works', but I'm not sure. If you can, that'd probably be the strongest legal backing you could get.

I'm not sure if having it on a memory card means much, since you can move/copy an image onto a memory card w/o much effort.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Well - this is an interesting question, considering what happened to me this weekend at Wal-Mart ...

I have been working on a project to re-print past storm images to cover my walls at home. Have gradually been sorting through the ones I want to include, and still have a ways to go. So this weekend I was having friends over - and normally for my digital prints, I just upload to MPIX, certify that I'm the owner and get my prints in a couple days in the mail. But since I wanted some of these photos up before my friends arrived, I resorted to the good peeps at Wally World instead.

So I go back after the mandatory hour cooling off period, and the lady at the counter says: "we need to see the original images." And I say, "well, here's the CD I put them on." And she says, "no, I need to see the ones the original photographer took." And I say, "well, I am the original photographer and these are my photos." So she pulls out one I took of the Empire State Building in NY last spring - - easily the best photo I've ever taken ... the sun was setting on the western face of the building, the angle was perfect, the sky was this gorgeous blue, and the shot was in perfect focus - - anyway, she points to it, and says "I'm sorry, but this photo was taken by a professional photographer and it is illegal to steal images." So I say, "well I am a professional photographer and I took that image last May in New York, and it along with all of the others are on my website." So finally she had me sign their release form and I was finally on my way. I told her I was flattered and that I appreciated them going to such lengths to protect images, considering that I've seen what happens when people steal them ... but this was just too much hassle in the end ... no more Wal-Mart for me.

 

[Tyler Allison]

or she didn't think you were good enough to take the picture of course how would she know that?

 

[John Diel]

Wal-Mart and others have been hit with enough lawsuits that they now are very discerning about what pictures they will print out. Most of these lawsuits came from Portrait and wedding photographers.

I do pportraits and wedding on the side and have been hit with this a few times. I haven't had any problem once I went down, provided a business card and signed the release.

As far as digital pictures go. The best way is to put them on CD (original files), send them to the Copyright office and pay the $30 fee. You get the confirmation back after a short amount of time and they are then "Officially" copyrighted as yours. It's a drastic way to go, but if you ever wish to use the photos for commercial purposes, it's the only way to go. Then you have a recourse if someone steals them.

Of course anything posted on the web that you want to keep from being stolen, edit the EXIF information, place a watermark diagonally across the entire image and use 72 dpi resolution. That doesn't keep it from being stolen, but it makes it much harder for someone to try and edit everything you've doen to it.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

If you can shoot in RAW format I would do that. I shoot in all raw and keep the raw files(obviously). I then convert to tiff and do whatever with them. Someone could have a full resolution tiff of a file of mine and I'd still have the RAW file. You can save things as whatever, tiff, jpeg, etc, but you can't save a tiff as a RAW. So if the other person can't produce the actual RAW file and you can....well that is plenty of proof.

Once you shoot an image you don't have to do anything to prove it is yours, not even register it. But, if someone uses the image and you don't have it registered you basically can't even take them to court as you won't get enough to cover lawyer fees(maybe you'll get REAL lucky and cover). Having them registered gives you rights to punitive damages and then you can actually stand a chance at getting something in court.

I had some lawyers involved with one infringement that got settled recently. All the party has to do is check the copyright office and see I didn't have them registered and know I couldn't get much in court. They stood firm with the lawyers at $750 and they settled. The lawyer fees were almost $800 and I got ZERO. All becuase I didn't have them registered. And that was without even going to court. The lawyers knew without them registered they couldn't even get anymore if they went. Heck a $180/hour lawyer in Omaha told me it wasn't even possible for me to take anyone to court if they aren't registered. She said this was the law. I'd think for $180/hour they'd know what they are talking about, but apparently not. It still shows how important it is to register them.

 

[David Drummond]

Depending on how many photos you take, periodically (3 months, 6 months, year, whatever) burn them all to a CD or data DVD in the native format you took them, and send it in to the Copyright office with the paperwork. That should take care of that end of it for you.

On another note, and I am asking this out of pure curiousity for you regular pro photogs out there since I rarely do anything in stills in years..but...

Has the quality of photo processing at Walmart improved to the level pro photogs really use them? I would have thought you guys would be going with more of a pro store. Again, not knocking, just wondering. I realize the cost difference there.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Walmart seem alright till you try a decent printer. The problem with Walmart is their machines are pretty much on autopilot... they read your file, guess what the right colors/contrast/exposure and it cranks it out. That said, their workers are friendly and are speedy.

I'd find a printer that has ICC color settings for their machines... you can then match those up in photoshop (embed them in your jpg) and be guarenteed a spot on print. For me.... well I use White House Custom Colour... I was simply shocked at the difference in quality between their prints and Walmart/Sams Club. They offer free shipping and have low min. orders of $12 or so.

Generally, I use Walmart for 4x6 proofs that send off to magazines/clients etc. and use WHCC for everything else (up to 20x30 posters so far).

I recently sent in for about 100 free prints ranging from 4x6-16x20 from shutterfly... I'll let you know how they turn out although I'm expecting Walmart quality.

Aaron

 

[Edward Ballou]

I have been formulating an idea for a program to write to hide a watermark in plain sight.

HOWEVER, if you do a search on this, it turns out that with just a few tweaks of effects in photoshop, you can virtually remove any trace of the watermark.

So I'm back to square one. But for the inexperienced, this is a tactic that would look very tempting.

I would then write a program to compare the two picture files and make the watermark stand out in all its glory.

Good idea, but I just don't know how to get around applying effects to the image.

 

[John Diel]

Wal-Mart, or any other local processer for that matter, does alright. They aren't "Pro" quality and don't stand up against Miller's or one of the other Professional houses though. The trick is getting someone that knows how to make the Fuji machine work. If you get the High School Bubble blowing bimbo that loads and goes, your prints will be standard run of the mill. If you get someone that actually has taken time to learn the equipment (and there are several that do) you can get a better print. This is expecially true when you start looking at the larger sized prints.

It's really a matter of getting to know the people and finding out what they know about the equipment. The better relationship you have with them, the better the services offered will be. Find out what yu can about their equipment as well. Find out what it's capable of. If your local folks use the Fuji 390, look it up. There are also Print Profile Targets available to help you match your computer to the print service. It's a little extra work on both parties, but in the end, when you edit your photograph, you will be assured that it will match up with the printers capabilities.

If you're really going to get into this, then you will want to do several other things as well. Calibrate your monitor is a biggie. Matching the Monitor profile to the printer profile so the two match up. There's a whole host of tweaks that can be used to help out. All of them take time though and require a certain amount of expertise in both photography and post processing to get the best results.

Most people aren't that interested in going to all the hassle and are satisfied with the results they get from Wal-Mart.

I'm a low budget photograher. I'll take on the portraits and weddings the Studio folks won't. I get enough business to pay for my costs and a little gasoline for chasing. If a potential wedding client comes to me and asks me to do their wedding, I find out what kind of budget they are running. If it's a big budget wedding, I usually recommend one of the local wedding photogs in the area. If they are dirt poor and it's obvious, then I'll take on that wedding. I won't go into why I do things that why, but I do.

 

[fplowman]

when submitting pics to walmart i do so under my company name adavanced digital.. i havent been given problems yet and of course i have a business card and if asked i point to the fact i am a professional video / photo business. That should put your issues to rest with the camera dept.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I don't think Wal-Mart should be making the call as to whether a photo is being reproduced illegally (and harassing/denying service to a customer for it) unless they have conclusive evidence to support that. The quality of the image is not conclusive evidence. In fact, with quality digital cameras getting cheaper, professional-looking photos are going to become more common anyway. If you are the photographer, no one should make you jump through hoops to get your own images printed. Sounds like a note to the store management would be in order.

This is why I always have gone to a pro lab. Not only do they do a much better job (for just a little more cost) but they treat you like a pro and learn to know your taste and preferences in the finished product.

 

[John Diel]

Dan,

I think here, I'll disagree with you. As a matter of liability the company reproducing the pictures has a duty to the customer. They also have the responsibility to not perpetuate illegal copying. This falls into a braod area of coverage, but would include pornography, or even PG13-rated photos. It is the the call of the company and NOT the consumer as to what can be printed.

The obvious things like photos that have proof marks and copyright notices on them were getting printed, and thus the lawsuits. The lawsuits fell under Negligence tort law. The Photog sued both the client for making the illegal copies and the printer (Wal-Mart or others) for allowing it to happen.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way to the extreme and the Employee working the Photo Booth now has a responsibility to the Company. How far they choose to take this is strictly up to company policy. They DO need to protect themselves.

With todays software, it is very easy to digitally manipulate a photo in any form. Scan one in and with a decent scanner, it is very hard to tell a difference. Especially on a 4X6 print. You probably wouldn't be able to tell with or without the aid of a loupe. Scanning was the beginning. Quality digital cameras have basically put the ability into just about anyone's hands to make a "professional" photograph. Take a look at the new Fuji that came out last year. It automatically comensates for background and fill flash to get a better exposure that was previously only capable via the manual settings and knowing how to do it.

I see more and more amatuer photographers attempting to make a go of things professionally. Shoot, I even looked at starting my own Studio. I've got all the necessary equipment to create some very nice portraits. What's more, I have the know how to get it done. I didn't because in the depressed economy of our little section of the world, there are too many photographers.

Anyway, I digress. The proffesional photographers demand that printer/processors be aware of copyright. Some of the printer/processors have more latitude in their policy to printing than do others. Wal-Mart (to use them as an example) has been hit with several lawsuits concerning copyrighted material being printed. The courts sided with the photographers. Now as a matter of course and protecting their interests and investments they clamp down on what they will print. It's a situation brought on by ourselves.

You should go to some of the wedding photographers forums and professional photographer forums. Read some of the really bad horror stories brought on by their clients. Someone trying to circumvent a $600 wedding photographer charge, by scanning the proof book, then turning it back in and sueing the photographer because they didn't like the photos.

There are more stories along those lines.

 

[Tyler Allison]

I have been formulating an idea for a program to write to hide a watermark in plain sight.

You are looking for 'steganography'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

It can basically hide anything within the unused portions of the binary data. You could put "picture taken by Fred" in there and then you can take the original and take the supposed copy...and if the copy has the 'picture taken by Fred' hidden in the data you know you have a stolen item since the "signature" matches.

Stego can be used for all sorts of things like covert discussions between terrorists, etc...but you could use it for this. It has *ZERO* impact on the image or the quality...in theory

Of course if you convert the PNG to a GIF you loose the stego but if you convert your RAW format to PNG/BMP/whatever..drop a stego into the file before posting to the internet you could....in theory...know it was your picture if anybody claimed otherwise.