Author Topic: Here is google's step in destroying the stock image market (Read 5699 times)

Artist · « **on:** August 19, 2017, 04:48 »

"Researchers from Google have developed an algorithm that completely removes watermarks from images in a matter of seconds – and it works entirely automatically." -TNW

Shame google

https://research.googleblog.com/2017/08/making-visible-watermarks-more-effective.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/18/16162108/google-research-algorithm-watermark-removal-photo-protection
https://thenextweb.com/google/2017/08/18/google-watermark-stock-photo-remove/#.tnw_JRDviL2C
https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/17/google-researchers-made-an-algorithm-to-delete-watermarks-from-photos/

niktol · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2017, 04:59 »

Those algorithms aren't off-the-shelf. It's good that someone legit is doing research on watermark vulnerabilities.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2017, 18:01 »

Quote from: niktol on August 19, 2017, 04:59

Those algorithms aren't off-the-shelf. It's good that someone legit is doing research on watermark vulnerabilities.

"As such, in our paper we also propose ways to make visible watermarks more robust to such manipulations."

Which is what this research does to stop thieves.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2017, 20:20 »

So they build a pretty amazing watermark removing tool and identify a solution. What would be really helpful is if they took their discovery and built a watermark generating tool.

michaeldb · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2017, 20:30 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 19, 2017, 20:20

So they build a pretty amazing watermark removing tool and identify a solution. What would be really helpful is if they took their discovery and built a watermark generating tool.

Indeed. Why did they build a watermark removal tool if they planned that no one would ever use it? So they could sell software to defend against their watermark removal tool once it "accidentally" gets into the hands of the public?

Google has been fighting a long battle to get of the copyright which is the basis of our ability to make money. Google's real motto is "Do evil and sell ads which profit from the work of creatives while paying them nothing."

Artist · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2017, 00:58 »

Quote from: niktol on August 19, 2017, 04:59

Those algorithms aren't off-the-shelf. It's good that someone legit is doing research on watermark vulnerabilities.

Though they are doing it right by finding the watermark vulnerability but don't you think that this is also giving idea to hackers and other developers about this loophole.
World is too big and google is a part of it.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2017, 03:34 »

Quote from: Artist on August 20, 2017, 00:58

giving idea to hackers and other developers about this loophole.
World is too big and google is a part of it.

So you think no hacker has ever thought of removing watermarks until now, when Google say it can be done? Oh my...

Anyone with a bit of computer knowledge can remove a watermark. Most of them are black/white put on top with 50% opacity or so. Identify the shape, and change the values of the affected pixels back to their original brightness.

Just like anyone with (deeper) computer knowledge can hack almost any piece of software.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2017, 04:31 »

Unbelievable how some people are jumping to conclusions without reading the sources they quoted themselves

Google is doing this to show loopholes and allow software makers to develop new methods to counter these algorithms. Like a hacker who is hired by a software company to find exploitable bugs in their software so it can be fixed.
If anything this kind of research helps developers extend their knowledge when it comes to securing our images. They even offered some solutions to counter their own algorithm. It's up to other developers to use this knowledge and improve the watermarks currently in use.

It's tempting to see Google as a corporate beast intent on world domination and exploiting its workers, and when it comes to privacy and image search Google sometimes acts as if they are, but this research and development is actually beneficial to us image creators.

Shutterstock is the first agency (AFAIK) to actually introduce some randomness to their watermarks, making it more difficult for watermark removal tools to do their job. Every image agency should take note of this and do the same.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2017, 05:06 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on August 20, 2017, 04:31

Shutterstock is the first agency (AFAIK) to actually introduce some randomness to their watermarks, making it more difficult for watermark removal tools to do their job. Every image agency should take note of this and do the same.

Exactly, that is one good way to make it harder to remove watermarks, especially in large numbers.

Also, not using transparent watermarks would make it harder.

niktol · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2017, 05:30 »

Quote from: Artist on August 20, 2017, 00:58

Quote from: niktol on August 19, 2017, 04:59
Those algorithms aren't off-the-shelf. It's good that someone legit is doing research on watermark vulnerabilities.

Though they are doing it right by finding the watermark vulnerability but don't you think that this is also giving idea to hackers and other developers about this loophole.
World is too big and google is a part of it.

The idea is hardly news. You can buy watermark removal software for 30 bucks, perhaps cheaper if you shop for it. I don't know how well it works and if it uses machine learning algorithms.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's implementation that is hard. The Google's project is very likely about something much bigger, such as computer vision. And a "cool" side effect to capture journalist's imagination.

sharpshot · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2017, 06:10 »

Most of our images seem to be out there for anyone who wants to risk using them without a license. Shame Google aren't working on something to get payments from unlicensed use. I know a lot of people wouldn't pay up but I'm sure many businesses would have to.