> > > > 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 here. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
