Invisible Copyright

I read somewhere that you could put a hidden copyright stamp on your photos. So when you view them on a website and download it they would see the copyright stamp. Even if you copy the screen and edit it in Photoshop your copyright stamp would be visible if printed.

The reasoning for this is I have a client who asked me if I could do some photos ​for him and would like to see them online before he buys them. I thought about doing small thumbnails but he didn't like that idea.

Is there a plugin for Photoshop or Lightroom that can do this?

I got the idea when I tried to print an original scan of my birth certificate. You couldn't even see what was printed on it.

Ok, I don't know what happened here... That's not the title I entered. Also there was text already in the edit window.

Moderators, if you can please change the topic to 'Invisible Copyright'.

I didn't know this was possible so I did a google search for invisible watermark and found a plethora of tutorials.

Want to try this now.

I had a quick look at one of the first pages on a relevant Google search, and although the steganographic methods are good for proving that the work is yours, when used digitally, for example on a website, they will not prevent the image from being printed. If you can see the image, you can grab the image, and once grabbed it can be printed. It simply won't work as a method of preventing a client from taking the image and printing it themselves. It isn't even going to work if they take the image to have it printed at a lab, since the lab are not likely to go looking for hidden watermarks. In that case you can only hope that the lab considers the images to be too professional looking and refuse the job.

Really the only way to stop people printing the proofs themselves is by making the image very small, I would say at most 600 pixels on the long edge. I know that 600 pixels seems very small, but consider that most people now consider that images displayed at 100 PPI are super duper quality, and so are more than likely to be happy with prints at that resolution too. Oh and to catch the uninitiated I would also set the PPI/DPI tag in the file to something quite high, maybe even 600 PPI, since then many programs are likely to show a very small physical size based on the low pixel count. Even then I would add a large obvious watermark.

If I were selling the client a large print, providing a decent return, then I would maybe send two or three larger sized images, without any big obtrusive watermark, to let them chose the final image. I would only do this once they have paid for the print though, before that it would be the small heavily marked image only.

My personal view is that if you want to make money with pints, you need to make coming in to the studio to go over the proofs etc a part of the process that the client wants to take part in. Once you have sold them the prints then I would give them decent quality digital files too, since then you have made your money.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18313863
I had a quick look at one of the first pages on a relevant Google search, and although the steganographic methods are good for proving that the work is yours, when used digitally, for example on a website, they will not prevent the image from being printed. If you can see the image, you can grab the image, and once grabbed it can be printed. It simply won't work as a method of preventing a client from taking the image and printing it themselves. It isn't even going to work if they take the image to have it printed at a lab, since the lab are not likely to go looking for hidden watermarks. In that case you can only hope that the lab considers the images to be too professional looking and refuse the job.

Really the only way to stop people printing the proofs themselves is by making the image very small, I would say at most 600 pixels on the long edge. I know that 600 pixels seems very small, but consider that most people now consider that images displayed at 100 PPI are super duper quality, and so are more than likely to be happy with prints at that resolution too. Oh and to catch the uninitiated I would also set the PPI/DPI tag in the file to something quite high, maybe even 600 PPI, since then many programs are likely to show a very small physical size based on the low pixel count. Even then I would add a large obvious watermark.

If I were selling the client a large print, providing a decent return, then I would maybe send two or three larger sized images, without any big obtrusive watermark, to let them chose the final image. I would only do this once they have paid for the print though, before that it would be the small heavily marked image only.

My personal view is that if you want to make money with pints, you need to make coming in to the studio to go over the proofs etc a part of the process that the client wants to take part in. Once you have sold them the prints then I would give them decent quality digital files too, since then you have made your money.

Alan

Yup, you discussed some other avenues I thought about going down. Actually, I was thinking 480 DPI on the long side at 72 DPI.

I thought I had one a while back that was free but it's since been outdated and probably thrown away since I couldn't get an older version of it to work with Windows 7.

CameraMan wrote in post #18313885
Yup, you discussed some other avenues I thought about going down. Actually, I was thinking 480 DPI on the long side at 72 DPI.

I thought I had one a while back that was free but it's since been outdated and probably thrown away since I couldn't get an older version of it to work with Windows 7.

I assume you meant 480 pixels, at 72 PPI? The thing with setting the PPI value to a low level is that when you look at the image, and the software gives a physical size it is based on the PPI value embedded in the file. So if you use a large PPI value the software will return a small physical size. 480px at 72 PPI is 6.67" while at 300 PPI it is 1.6" and at 600 PPI it is only 0.8". We all know that the value is completely pointless, but it can be a useful confusion to the uninitiated. The one value I would not use would be 300 PPI though, since that is the one value that people associate with "high quality" photo printing.

If you are wanting online protection from steganographic methods then this simple option for doing it in Photoshop looks like it will do the job, and is free. It should be easy enough to set up the Q code image and just run it as an action when exporting images for posting on the web for general viewing. Generally I would expect that an unsophisticated client would be deterred from printing by a large very visible watermark. It is the Photo Stealer lifting others images, and who have even been known to remove large watermarks from across the center of the image that the hidden watermark is at least easily going to show that you own the copyright.

Alan

Cool idea, but anyone could still screenshot the image then.

Novel technique at https://petapixel.com …ding-it-into-your-photos/.

John from PA wrote in post #18314741
Novel technique at https://petapixel.com …ding-it-into-your-photos/.

I do something similar for a lot of my images. For me, it's fun and a challenge. My watermark can be integrated into my photo very subtly or not so much, depending on what the photo is for.

Here's one that's not so subtle.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MbZB​8x

Till now I used to think that it is only possible to add copyright information to any photo but didnt hear about invisible copyright stamp yet!

CameraMan wrote in post #18313547
The reasoning for this is I have a client who asked me if I could do some photos ​for him and would like to see them online before he buys them. I thought about doing small thumbnails but he didn't like that idea.

He certainly has no plans to buy them.

A point I'd like to make about this practice, though:

The impulse to buy an image is greatest the first time the customer sees the image. That's when you want them to pull out the credit card: On first sight.

If they have the option of not purchasing when they first see it, then the impulse to purchase diminishes greatly, and drops logarithmically every time they're able to view it without purchasing it.

If they are able to show the image to others without purchasing it, the chances of selling it becomes almost nil.

Well, he wanted portraits for his portfolio. And access to view high res photos before he paid. I ended up showing him the best one with a watermark on it. He pushed for more without watermarks.

Obviously he was going to stiff me that's why I wanted an invisible watermark. I'm looking into a couple I found online. Digimarc looks good but I've got some time to think about the others​.

Thanks for all the input. I had already Googled invisible watermarks but couldn't make a decision. That's why I started the thread. To get some input from someone who has actually used them.

CameraMan wrote in post #18316139
Well, he wanted portraits for his portfolio. And access to view high res photos before he paid. I ended up showing him the best one with a watermark on it. He pushed for more without watermarks.

Obviously he was going to stiff me that's why I wanted an invisible watermark. I'm looking into a couple I found online. Digimarc looks good but I've got some time to think about the others​.

Thanks for all the input. I had already Googled invisible watermarks but couldn't make a decision. That's why I started the thread. To get some input from someone who has actually used them.

Stop fooling with him. Tell him you run your business the way you run your business, and you're offering for sale what you want to sell.

He either buys your product, or you walk away. No one customer is essential to your business, and your life will be much more pleasant when you realize you have to fire some customers...particular​ly the ones you already know are trying to cheat you.

You don't try to accommodate people you know are trying to screw you, you walk away from them.

Way ahead of you. I showed him the one photo and he wanted to see more and I told him I needed to be paid first. He got all huffy, I took the picture down and he called me 2 hours later to set up a payment agreement. I met with him. He paid me and I told him I'd have his photos for him later that day.

But that's what I want to try to avoid with an invisible copyright. If the guy was going to have it printed without paying me first I would rather it looked like this:

*copyright

just in case you do go down that pathway