At 12:21 PM -0400 9/19/10, TR Shaw wrote:
On Sep 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, tedd wrote:
At 6:56 PM -0400 9/17/10, TR Shaw wrote:
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> At the end of the day, if you want to prevent people downloading your
images, then just don't show them the i
At 12:32 PM -0400 9/19/10, TR Shaw wrote:
On Sep 19, 2010, at 11:50 AM, tedd wrote:
At 12:36 AM +0100 9/18/10, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
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 h
On Sep 19, 2010, at 11:50 AM, tedd wrote:
> At 12:36 AM +0100 9/18/10, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>>
>> 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, b
At 7:56 PM -0400 9/17/10, TR Shaw wrote:
Nevertheless, I say again the key is to add something is that if an
employee of a customer who purchases the image and resells it that
you have a possibility to prove. Yes really smart bad people can
defeat but 1) most of these aren't stealing your pi
At 12:36 AM +0100 9/18/10, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
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
At 6:56 PM -0400 9/17/10, TR Shaw wrote:
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> At the end of the day, if you want to prevent people downloading your
images, then just don't show them the image.
Actually you can. Serve up an image from the DB and add watermark
or whatever o
At 6:21 PM -0400 9/17/10, Gary wrote:
""Gary"" wrote in message
news:1f.27.30333.1d5e3...@pb1.pair.com...
Is there a way to insert a watermark on an image as it is being uploaded
to the image file, then removed when it is called from a database to be
viewed on a website?
The rational behin
Thank you both for your input, my assumption was when an image file is
gathered from a web page, through whatever method, the image was going to be
served up from the server, thus if the image file on the server had the
watermark, then so would the image that is being captured.
Thanks again for
"Ashley Sheridan" wrote in message
news:1284763747.12459.40.ca...@localhost...
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>
>> Gary
>>
>> you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
>> watermark, simple drag and drop can copy the image as is (eg without the
>
Tom
No, I had never D&D'd an image, however I just did. So I see your point.
Thanks for your input.
Gary
"TR Shaw" wrote in message
news:cff72d3b-52cf-4baf-b60f-6b3709c98...@oitc.com...
Gary
you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
watermark, simple drag and d
On Sep 17, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> >
> > 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 (assum
On Sep 17, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 19:20 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:56 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 19:20 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:56 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wro
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:56 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >> you do realize that if you display the image
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:56 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
> >
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
> >> watermark, simple drag and drop can
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
>
>> Gary
>>
>> you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
>> watermark, simple drag and drop can copy the image as is (eg without the
>> watermark)
>>
>> Tom
>>
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:41 -0400, TR Shaw wrote:
> Gary
>
> you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
> watermark, simple drag and drop can copy the image as is (eg without the
> watermark)
>
> Tom
>
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Gary wrote:
>
> >
> > ""Gary""
Gary
you do realize that if you display the image in a browser without the
watermark, simple drag and drop can copy the image as is (eg without the
watermark)
Tom
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Gary wrote:
>
> ""Gary"" wrote in message
> news:1f.27.30333.1d5e3...@pb1.pair.com...
>> Is there
""Gary"" wrote in message
news:1f.27.30333.1d5e3...@pb1.pair.com...
> Is there a way to insert a watermark on an image as it is being uploaded
> to the image file, then removed when it is called from a database to be
> viewed on a website?
>
> The rational behind this is I have a photographers
20 matches
Mail list logo
