|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
a wiki for online copyright protection
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: But we already have laws, disclaimers, and acceptable use policies, and they aren't working. What makes you think trying the same thing will be any different? May 21 13 04:08 pm Link May 21 13 04:11 pm Link Schlake wrote: like i said...its an attempt to facilitate enforcement. enforcement of existing laws. and like i said I dont think it will work. why are you arguing? May 21 13 04:22 pm Link Schlake wrote: that approach attempts to solve a very different type of problem - protecting transmission of extremely high value assets or stuff that simply cannot afford to be compromised even once. It does nothing to facilitate enforcement of copyright. nobody is stealing images off the wire. my pic of stephanies boobs may be awesome (her boobs are almost a national treasure) but no one tried to intercept my communication with her when I sent her the images or when I uploaded them to a website (no I didnt upload them to MM yet). People are grabbing iminges off websites, getting them from friends, sharing etc. May 21 13 04:28 pm Link This is an interesting thread. I literally invented one of the primary ways to identify infringement online (various patents issued from a 1999 filing, including https://www.google.com/patents/US8261366?dq=8,261,366) so I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time. Now, like then, there is no bulletproof way to prevent copying. The fundamental problem is that it is impossible to use the mechanism you describe to prevent copying of an image that is being transmitted for display to a human being. This is the "analog hole". Ultimately, human eyes are analog devices. So at some point, regardless of how well the digital data is encrypted, it must be processed in a way that renders analog light data that a human eye can see. If a human eye can see it, a camera designed to function like a human eye can copy it. Not that there aren't numerous possible generations of cat and mouse technology changes that can make the copying harder, but ultimately it all comes down to the difficulty in protecting an analog signal that a human being can still see. As a practical matter, the problems with encryption occur before conversion to analog as well -- consider that DVDs, then Blue Ray, then HDCP were all supposed to be bulletproof right up to the moment when they were cracked. It is relatively easy with current technology to identify infringing images, to watermark, etc. There are powerful legal tools to punish infringement (including statutory infringement damages that are so large as to be potentially unconstitutional -- the Supreme Court will eventually have to figure that piece out). Can we make copying materials impossible? Yes, by keeping them in a format that never leaves digital (and this assumes that the encryption method used isn't defeated by future technology). But isn't the whole point of being in a creative field to share that creativity? The more we lock down our photographs, the fewer people will be able to see them -- and learn from them, be inspired by them, create transformative new art from them, etc. Personally, I also worry that encrypting my own content will somebody lead to my own inability to access it (if you've ever had an encrypted disk go bad, you know what I'm talking about -- encrypted data, once damaged, is almost impossible to recover without extraordinary cost). Maybe it is because I come to this from the patent creation side, but I think the legal protection for copyright is more than enough to protect artists. With patents, the bargain we make with the government is that we explain exactly how to make the invention work, and the government publishes it for everybody to see, learn from, and build on. In exchange, we get a temporary right to prevent other people from practicing the claimed invention. Copyright is also a temporary right (temporary being a term I use loosely with the long copyright terms we now have) to prevent others from copying a work, a right the government grants in order to encourage creation of new works. Making files a little harder to copy is one thing (i.e. sending a lower resolution version to clients first, etc). Trying to lock the creative process down end to end seems like a huge distraction from the job of creating the content we seek to protect. May 21 13 04:39 pm Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: This implements a key that can't be leaked/shared. It's required for part D of the original post. May 21 13 04:39 pm Link Schlake wrote: but not in a way that can be used in this context. one time pads are useful in a limited environment. thats why they arent even used for high risk widespread environments like banking. great for spies because you can exchange slips of paper. but useless to facilitate finding and dealing with infringement. or preventing it with the 'this will self-destruct' idea in the OP that got modified after a few posts. May 21 13 04:47 pm Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: You mostly get it! May 21 13 05:04 pm Link You guys have been BUSY while I was away! Thanks so much for all the responses and the quality of the debate thus far. Perhaps further debate and contributions will engender more ideas, maybe even a workable one ; May 23 13 08:18 pm Link Mystic Flow Studios wrote: The average computer user probably isn't the one you are worried about. They just look at pictures and move on. Content thieves, however, are out to steal content. A moving gallery is just as easy. A person has to download the images to their computer to view them. Disabling right-click doesn't change the fact that the person has explicit permission to download the images, putting them into a flash gallery doesn't change the fact that the person has explicit permission to download the images, making them move around doesn't change the fact that they have explicit permission to download them. And, in all these cases, they have in fact downloaded them because otherwise they couldn't see them in the first place. Mystic Flow Studios wrote: I don't know what to say. I really don't... May 24 13 05:23 am Link Schlake wrote: That's a bit different understanding than I have of what "downloading" means. I would distinguish *viewing* from downloading in the sense that, in order to infringe upon the image-copyright, one would first have to take the additional step of actually copying the image onto their computer, or of forwarding it to another site for exploitation. May 24 13 02:28 pm Link Mystic Flow Studios wrote: You can't view an image until you have downloaded it. May 24 13 02:34 pm Link Schlake wrote: You've made that statement at least three times in this thread. Sometimes I get the idea you simply like to argue for the sake of argument. It sounds like a merely semantic difference to me, and hardly worth pursuing, nor in insisting upon so often. May 24 13 02:58 pm Link Here are my thoughts on what would likely be needed to prevent copying of a digital image, no guarantees even this would work. In fact it won't work if someone is doing an external screen capture, but I am thinking this may prevent single computer copying and distribution. - First the jpeg format is the best to start from, by its nature it builds a table of 8x8 pixel blocks, the lower the compression (better quality) the more blocks. If you modified the download program to download only some of the blocks and only if you have the correct key can you download the rest. The key and viewing software has to be registered to a specific machine (like most annoying software keys these days). They also have to be registered to that specific image file. - Next, you need the new viewing software to split the image into 2 windows directly over and aligned with each other. The non-keyed portion would show up in the upper window, they keyed portion would show up in the lower window. - The software would have to modify "Print screen" to only show the upper window and/or you could have the software only work on monitors with a refresh rate of 120hz or higher and then flicker between the two windows at 60hz (or higher). Thus only one part of the image would be on screen at any one time for on screen capture. Without the key and the software, part of the image would not have the file information to display. In fact you could arrange so the file information is not part of either part without the key. Or even the file display information could be a third part sent separately. - Thus you could move the software within a machine with no problem. To move it to another machine however, the other machine would have to have a key that is compatible with that image on the receiving machine. So all keys would need to be generated at the location of the copyright holder. - Finally to prevent the image from being lost for all time, there needs to a archival release mechanism that tells the software to merge the parts and output a regular file. The release mechanism would be kept by central agency and could be activated after a set time or before hand by the copyright holder sending a specific request for that image. Because the individual blocks can be encrypted and the order can also be encrypted and it is in two parts the release mechanism would be specific to that image. Essentially a table of release codes would have to be generated and held if a copyright holder wanted to release all images from a set. However by using this process the images would also be registered at the same time. Just some thoughts, I think I am starting to ramble. May 24 13 04:44 pm Link Mystic Flow Studios wrote: This is fundamental to the issue though. He wants to prevent downloads because he wants to prevent people from sharing. They can only view an image if they download it. If you want to call it copying, then ok. In order to view an image the end user has to have explicit permission to copy that image to their computer. If they don't, then they can't view it in the first place. If they do have permission to view the image, then they have explicit permission to copy it. May 24 13 04:46 pm Link Longwatcher wrote: Definitely rambling. While it was an interesting trip, it didn't get anywhere. Once the image is decrypted on the end users machine, they have a copy of it decrypted. Playing games and tricks to break the clipboard doesn't change the fact that the image is decrypted locally and the end user has possession of it. May 24 13 04:50 pm Link Longwatcher wrote: Thanks for a very interesting exposition of your outline for an approach! I will leave it to those far more knowledgeable than I to take it forward from the point to which you've taken it (if that's possible), and to modify or add to it if in fact it ultimately points towards a workable solution. May 24 13 05:15 pm Link great idea,,,but i think like many gun control laws, it only stops the law abiding from breaking the law. I can screen grab your image, I can strip it of its copyright data (whatever one adds in security another can beat), etc. the facial recognition idea is a good one...and one I bet we all would pay $1 per image for. Meaning BILLIONS of dollars a year. May 24 13 05:24 pm Link SensualThemes wrote: facial recognition was a good idea last year (or the year before). but once it became viable technology it became worthwhile to developed ways to fool it. you can now embed enough false clues into an image without visibly changing it to fool facial recognition. Only a matter of time before they crack tineye and google image search as well. This is why I did not bother bringing it up 3 pages ago. Today you can find your images on either tineye or google image search. tomorrow? probably only the ones who didn't have criminal intent. A lot of people would be paying 1$ for nothing before anyone noticed that shit was getting through the sieve. May 24 13 07:38 pm Link |
