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
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 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
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, but the
Gary gp...@paulgdesigns.com 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
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 gp...@paulgdesigns.com wrote in message
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
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 Sep 17,
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 copy the image
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 in a browser without the
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 wrote:
Gary
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
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
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
detailed
Tom
No, I had never DD'd an image, however I just did. So I see your point.
Thanks for your input.
Gary
TR Shaw ts...@oitc.com 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,
Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk 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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
