Restricted Access Images

Supanova · Aug 23, 2009, 12:33:12

Hello everyone! I doubt any of you remember me as it has been a very long time since I posted anything here. Now I realise I'm being a little rude asking for help when I haven't contributed to the forum in such a long time, but I'm very stuck and need the advice of the advanced.

Basically me and my family got given a free photoshoot session with a company when we bought our new ford mondeo. The photographs are ridiculously expensive but very nice. For £600 *gasp!* we can get a 'Digital Album' with about 15 of those photos on a USB stick.

The problem is that is says "Please note that the Digital Album contains restricted access images for PC viewing only." which has me worried. For £600 I expect to be able to print out the pictures I buy, but looking at the prices of the other options in the booklet I don't think that's what this company has in mind.

My million dollar question is: Is there any way they could prevent the pictures from being printable, or if I am able to print them if they could be spoiled by some hidden thing that only comes out in the print. If there is, is there any way around it?

Thanks to any readers and posters,
Nick

Rik · Aug 23, 2009, 13:09:09

Hi Nick

Without seeing an image I wouldn't like to try and give you a definitive answer but there are several systems out there, eg Digimarc, which will give them precisely that control, so my guess is that what they imply is correct. When you try and print, you end up with big copyright messages right across the print.

Simon · Aug 23, 2009, 13:10:33

Sounds a bit dodgy to me. For £600, I would have thought you'd be buying the full unrestricted rights to the photos, to do with them as you please.

Rik · Aug 23, 2009, 13:17:49

You should, but you often don't. Most photographers retain copyright and printing rights, as that's where they make their money (look at weddings, for example).

Supanova · Aug 23, 2009, 13:43:47

Thanks for the info about programs like Digimarc. I'll be trying to find a way around it. If I pay £600 for a 30 minute shoot session and a few hours of editing I expect to be able to do what I want with the pictures. Does anyone know a way around digimarc like things or a website that might be able to help? I refuse to pay £400 per photo for them to print them...

Rik · Aug 23, 2009, 13:46:27

It's possible to work around Digimarc if the image is high enough resolution, but it involves printing, scanning and re-touching. There are apps out there which claim to be able to remove Digimarc, but I've never tried one to know. If they limit the resolution to TV/monitor sizes, you'd only be able to make quite small prints anyway.

D-Dan · Aug 24, 2009, 19:40:30

Just a shot in the dark, but can you display them full screen, use print screen to copy the display to the clipboard, and then paste the clipboard into a graphics program before re-saving an unrestricted image?

If you have a high enough resolution screen, and this method works, then you can print afterwards.

Steve

Rik · Aug 24, 2009, 19:41:24

That should work, Steve, but it is highly dependent on screen res, and will only allow small prints, up to 7 x 5 max.

Niall · Aug 24, 2009, 23:02:11

Quote from: Rik on Aug 23, 2009, 13:46:27
It's possible to work around Digimarc if the image is high enough resolution, but it involves printing, scanning and re-touching. There are apps out there which claim to be able to remove Digimarc, but I've never tried one to know. If they limit the resolution to TV/monitor sizes, you'd only be able to make quite small prints anyway.

This is where the sting is. The images are such a resolution that you can look at them on your PC, but when printing them yourself they're very poor quality. That's how the photographers make a living these days as it's so competitive out there, they get undercut all the time so need a way of getting revenue from their work. There were quite a few discussions on the OCUK forums about it a while ago. If you google about regarding this you'll see a lot of posts about it.

Personally, even though it's a hell of a lot of money to spend, and from one stand point a bit of a cheek, I side with the photographers on this. The time and effort you have to spend to learn your trade more than justifies it

P.S. Someone buy me a Canon 50mm 1.2L

Dopamine · Aug 24, 2009, 23:13:49

Quote from: Supanova on Aug 23, 2009, 12:33:12
Basically me and my family got given a free photoshoot session with a company when we bought our new ford mondeo. The photographs are ridiculously expensive but very nice. For £600 *gasp!* we can get a 'Digital Album' with about 15 of those photos on a USB stick.

You've been suckered, like so many.

Your photoshoot wasn't free, it's just pay later. These companies know that most who fall for it will end up buying enough photos to pay for the shoot.

If it's not too late, forget about buying the images, treat the shoot as a nice experience, and walk away. If you really like the idea of a nice family portrait or two, there are any number of small photographic studios or independents who will shoot you equally impressive images for far less than £600.

axisofevil · Aug 24, 2009, 23:46:23

It's possible to hide a "digital fingerprint" in a picture in such a way that it is invisible to the naked eye,
fairly robust when faced with normal Photoshop or GIMP manipulations such as cropping, contrast etc modification.
So it's marked as copyright.
It's a bit like when the Ordnance Survey put small errors into their maps, so that they sue people for copying them.

Simon · Aug 24, 2009, 23:57:41

How intriguing! Do they really do that?

axisofevil · Aug 25, 2009, 03:07:20

See digimark
This kind of thing can be done for videos too.

If you're very keen you can send encrypted messages buried inside images.

Rik · Aug 25, 2009, 09:11:34

I do.

Supanova · Aug 25, 2009, 12:58:42

Quote from: Dopamine on Aug 24, 2009, 23:13:49
You've been suckered, like so many. Your photoshoot wasn't free, it's just pay later.

Oh we knew it was going to be a sucker trap from the outset, but actually we get the free shoot and 1 free 10" by 8" photo so we can just walk away with that. Looks like that's what we will be doing as paying £200 per 10x8 picture is utterly outrageous to me. I am a Yorkshireman after all

Thanks for everyone's input on the thread. Most helpful

Rik · Aug 25, 2009, 13:00:34

It's outrageous to me, too. At most, that print costs them 50p. £10-15 would be an adequate profit. Of course, it's fairly easy to scan that print for further copies...

D-Dan · Aug 25, 2009, 20:14:08

Quote from: Rik on Aug 24, 2009, 19:41:24
That should work, Steve, but it is highly dependent on screen res, and will only allow small prints, up to 7 x 5 max.

Anyone with a half decent graphics card these days can set up a "Screen" resolution much higher than their physical display can handle, that simply scrolls. I've never tried this personally, but doing so and grabbing the screen at ludicrously high resolution may be a way around this.

Steve

Edit: I hope evil Mandy isn't reading this

Niall · Aug 25, 2009, 22:36:13

Ah you bunch of tight buggers! Think of the poor bloke who has to pay £6,000 for the lens needed for the photo shoot!

Simon · Aug 25, 2009, 22:50:38

I guess the prices are high, because they get so many who don't actually buy the photos, but perhaps if they reduced the prices to something more affordable, people would buy them, and there wouldn't be so much wastage?

Niall · Aug 25, 2009, 22:55:51

The way they work varies. There are photographers out there that still use the old fashion "you get what you pay for" method, but charge a massive outlay initially. With the way we're talking about here, you pay a smaller fee and buy additional photos.

Personally I like both ways. You just need to understand the reasoning behind it and choose your plan.