my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Anti-Counterfeit code in Photoshop (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Anti-Counterfeit code in Photoshop Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-13-2004 10:40 PM                     I'm sure at least of few Film-Tech Forum members have heard about this new "feature" in Adobe Photoshop CS, the latest version of the world's most popular graphics application. It seems PhotoshopCS and JASC's Paint Shop Pro both have new technology that prevents users from opening and manipulating images of currency from several nations. I found out about this a few days ago at the Adobe Forums where users were complaining about this feature interfering with legitimate work. It seems the feature works so well that a lot of different types of images featuring money as a design element will not open. This new situation can be a real bitch if the art director from Forbes needs a illustration featuring a collage of bills for an article about currency exchange. You're going to be in trouble if you don't have an older version of Photoshop. A number of international banks approached Adobe and JASC about implementing the code created by Digimarc. Adobe is only now admitting to this issue since users are being negatively affected by this --not to mention that tech news sites like Wired News are running the story. I can understand why Adobe, JASC and those banks want the anti-counterfeiting feature installed. Photoshop is a very powerful program. Newer flatbed scanners are sporting optical hardware resolutions of staggering levels. Epson's Perfection3200 Photo scanner (3200 X 6400 dpi optical resolution) has been on the market for only a few months. Now they have a newer 4870 Photo model featuring 4800 X 9600 dpi hardware resolution. It is scary to think what counterfeiters could do with that kind of capability. Still, you have the matter of intent. I have had to do graphic designs and illustrations featuring images of money worked into a layout and there will continue to be demand for such illustrations and designs in the future. The way the law is written, you're not breaking counterfeiting law if you duplicate only one side of the bill. You're further protected if your images are no more than 50% of actual size or more than 150% of actual size. The US Treasury also says you have to delete the original scan once your job is done. The way Adobe's software is implemented you just can't deal with images of money period. All the more reason for me to just keep using Photoshop 6.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-13-2004 10:52 PM                  I agree Bobby! I'm gonna go back to 6 cuz I hate the "reporting" to the home office of the later versions! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-13-2004 11:21 PM                     Is this Photoshop 7? I'll have to try that if it is version 7 you are speaking of. I must agree Phil, the "checkin" thing is awful aggravating.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-14-2004 08:51 AM                        Adobe CS (For Crappy Suite) is all new. Like Photoshop 7, CS offers no real improvements over the previous version. It has a new browser I guess, but who cares? We have it at work and I am quite underwhelmed. I laugh at people who upgrade right away, especially now in the age of the internet when companies will release an unfinished buggy product just to get it out and then "fix" it later.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-14-2004 12:15 PM                        How does this reduce counterfeiting? And why would anyone need to use Photoshop to make fake bills? Obviously, the crooks don't actually want to _edit_ the scanned images, they just want to print them on paper stock that resembles the original. I don't get it.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-14-2004 12:36 PM                        I was talking with an astronomer friend about this problem the other night and he says Photoshop CS anti-counterfeit stuff keys off of patterns that resemble star patterns, on the bills. This is of concern to astronomers who use PS to post process CCD images. Theoretically the star patterns on the bills could show up in astronomical pictures (or at least close enough) and keep those pics from opening. It hasn't happened yet, but it's a big universe. I'm staying with PS 7  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-14-2004 05:49 PM                     quote: And why would anyone need to use Photoshop to make fake bills? Counterfeiters would create high-rez scans of original bills, remove the serial numbers and then input changing ones using a digitized vector version of the numeral font. The process would be fairly easy; certainly not as labor intensive as the "analog" methods shown in the new DVD of "To Live and Die in L.A." According to Wired News today, some people have been able to get around the feature. One method involves scanning the bills in chunks and then stitching them together. Apparently you can scan the image into one photo-editing app (such as Corel PhotoPaint) and then copy/paste it into Photoshop. And, of course, an older version of Photoshop (anything from version 7 and previous) will scan currency with no trouble at all. Counterfeiters will happily employ the workarounds to get their digitized versions of counterfeit currency made. But an honest graphic artist working against a deadline for a finance magazine can be jammed up with this bullshit. Adobe claims their main concern is making sure legit users are not hurt by this technology. But it is very clear from the posts on their forums that this new technology is doing exactly that. Adobe just needs to remove the feature with a maintenance patch. And here's another reason for Adobe to remove the feature. A lot of new inkjet printers already have similar features built in to reject print jobs containing exact size dupes of currency. So why should it be in the photo editing software, particularly when none of the stuff I would do with a dollar bill scan would be of exact size anyway? Durp!  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-14-2004 09:00 PM                     quote: Phil Hill: I'm gonna go back to 6 cuz I hate the "reporting" to the home office of the later versions! Try getting this little ditty called Little Shitch. It monitors your IP connection and lets you know when an application is phoning home. You then have the option to allow or deny the attempt. It also allows you to make rules to always allow/deny connection attempts by certain applications or other criteria like IP address or port. Needless to say, Photoshop is NEVER allowed to have an IP connection on MY computers.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-14-2004 09:09 PM                        Why does "Needless to say" sound like "I don't license my software" to me? Everything from digital satellite receivers to sewage tanks call home these days (as far as I know sewage tanks were the first too) to assure contractual agreements. Although it's certainly not the most effective piracy prevention scheme, it is certainly less of a hassle than many other methods. Besides, any statistics that can be collected by having the software report home can only help to improve a product that you obviously find useful. In most cases, being notified in a timely fashion of free updates is a nice extra too.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-14-2004 09:17 PM                     If I said that I never used software beyond the trial period I would be lying but I assure you that my copy of Photoshop is legit. I let the program register itself the first time after it was installed. You don't get support or product updates if you don't. (Getting a hard copy manual with your legit copy of an app is often worth the price of the program too!) After that, the program is cut off. If I think PS really needs to phone home for crash reporting, etc. I can temporarily unblock it. I don't think ANY application should EVER phone home without telling you and giving you the chance to accept or deny it.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-15-2004 08:32 AM                        I agree with Randy. It's called "Invasion of Pivacy". It basically turns Photoshop into spyware, though I've never had any version of Photoshop try to phone home, I thought only CS did that.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-15-2004 09:55 AM                        I'd be FAR MORE concerned about the privacy issues revolving around the use of data recorders in cars (often used to deny warranty claims) and OnStar systems that track everything you do with your vehicle... and call the cops on you when they think you're being bad. Nobody seems to make a fuss about cellular phones that track your movement either (they didn't used to). Sure, tracking you makes the cell system a lot more convenient for some people (some would disagree), but you give up a lot more of your privacy than you do by having a piece of software report data for statistical analysis used to improve the software product.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-15-2004 02:21 PM                     The question at hand was about Photoshop. I get just as pissed off about those other things too! Unless there is a government-issued warrant stating the reason why such information needs to be transmitted secretly, NO electronic device (or mechanical, chemical, etc.) should EVER send information without the user's knowledge and giving him/her the option to deny the transmission. On a satellite TV decoder that phones home when you order a pay-per-view movie, a little icon could flash on the screen that says, "Connecting...". With the On-Star system in your car, there could be a little light on your dashboard that flashes the message, "Transmitting..." I never said that such information shouldn't be transmitted. It's often useful to have machines do things for you like that. I am, however, adimant that NO macnine should transmit this information without telling the user what is going on and giving the user the option to override. (Except if there is a warrant.) In fact, I think that no machine should ever be built that doesn't have some kind of ability for a human to activate a manual override or even a complete shutdown if need be! Joe: I don't know if my version of PS phones home after the initial registration or not. Most of my applications get their internet connections blocked shortly after installation, except Eudora and Camino, etc. (Eudora isn't allowed to make any outgoing connections to port 80 either.)  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-15-2004 03:34 PM                     quote: NO electronic device (or mechanical, chemical, etc.) should EVER send information without the user's knowledge and giving him/her the option to deny the transmission. Good firewall software is all you need to do that. With the security level set at "high," Zone Alarm will not allow anything to leave your computer unless you allow it. Software developers know this, which is one reason why a growing number of applications must be "activated" within 2 weeks or 30 days of install. The software goes dead otherwise.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-15-2004 04:27 PM                     OK, fine. Simply TELL the user that the software needs to be registered or else the program(s) will stop working. If the person knows what's going on and has the chance to decide whether or not to comply then it's the USER'S problem if the software stops working because he didn't register. So long as the user knows what's going on. The same thing goes for this so-called anti-counterfeit feature. Simply tell the user something like, "Adobe does not condone the use of its software for illegal purposes and for that reason the application will not allow images of <some illegal subject matter> to be loaded." It's that simple.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.