Rob, See, you are assuming that there's an a priori knowledge of who is the owner an who infringes. Although it is often true in case of software, books and music, I think it is more vague in case of photographs. There're no negatives, just two (almost) identical image files. If I am an abuser, I may argue just as well that *you* have tampered with *my* identification <g> Oh well, I am not a lawyer. Lucky for me.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 10:30 PM Subject: Re: The old digital/film debate > On 28 Apr 2002 at 22:11, Mishka wrote: > > > Whatever you "hide" into your image, unless it is showing on the print, it > > can be removed simply by re-JPEG-ing it. And if it does show on a print, it is > > not hidden. As far as the image tags are concerned, *anyone* can overwrite them. > > If your customers are honest, a simple agreement (or an inobtrusive watermark) > > will do. If they are not, there's not much that can be done. Take a look at > > music and software copyright protection -- it exists only in people's minds. > > Everyone knows that there is no absolutely effective anti-piracy solution > however once a copyright abuser is caught the proof that any form of > identification applied by the copyright holder has been tampered with or > removed gives more clout to the copyright owner in the case of pursuance of > damages. > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
