> > 
> > Even the stenography has its flaws. Opening the image in an image editor, 
> > then doing a select all and pasting as a new image would remove any hidden 
> > meta info, and saving a couple of times as a jpeg would destroy any 
> > detailed information without distorting the photo (assuming it was a photo 
> > and not a diagram which would look awful as a jpeg)
> > 
> > I'm not sure if you ever had this at your school, but back when I was a 
> > kid, once a year class photos would be taken, as well as photos by 
> > yourself, even if you didn't want them. To ensure people paid for the 
> > proper photo, a large watermark was sprawled across the photo. It took a 
> > little while, but with a decent image editor you could pull out that 
> > watermark from the scanned in photo and have a good quality photo without 
> > paying for it. I'm not saying we should all do this (the photographer needs 
> > to be paid somehow!) but I'm saying it's possible if you have the time, 
> > inclination and means.
> > 
> Actually Ash, properly done stenography is actually embedded it the pixels - 
> not the metadata and can be placed such that only when the image is reduced 
> to x degraded percent is it lost which removes the value of the full res 
> image.
> However, the power of real stenography for copyrights (and not for spying) is 
> about the fact that the real user uses the image and if it gets copies by 
> someone the stenography copyright signatures remain and the copier doesn't 
> know about them
> Tom

I know this is getting a little off-topic here, but surely the way a
jpeg destroys data in an image would destroy the stenography information
too? To the human eye all would appear normal, but the copyright info
would be lost?

I don't know much about this sort of thing, so I'm making assumptions


Reply via email to