Does printscreen bypass software info?

[SpacePaw]

Hey,
Not like I'm going to do so or something but this thought keeps me awake at night lately. If you have illegal commercial software like photoshop it saves some specyfic info to the file you draw so it "knows" that it was made in photoshop. If you use that graphic in commercial project someone can check if you done it in photoshop then ask you if you have a legal license (or something like that, not sure really).
But let's say you make a printscreen of finished drawing and paste it into GIMP. Then save it. What happens? Does the file has GIMP-only info?
I kind of can't belive that this easy way to bypass legal licenses exists 0.o
Does anyone know something about that?

[m0ds]

Surely a photo of anything that exists previously still brings up copyright issues...

[SpacePaw]

Surely a photo of anything that exists previously still brings up copyright issues...

Well yes but I'm talking about your OWN work. You create something using illegal software (cracked paintshop/photoshop), then printscreen-paste it to open-source software which lets you use the outcome of your work commercially (like GIMP). I know it's still illegal but this seems untrackable 0.0

[arj0n]

Spacepaw, I think your talking about the exif information stored in images.
The printscreen-paste option will do the trick but there are also exif-editors around.

[SpacePaw]

Spacepaw, I think your talking about the exif information stored in images.
The printscreen-paste option will do the trick but there are also exif-editors around.

But this is insane 0.o this means that everyone can use illegal software and make others belive he/she made it using free alternatives

[arj0n]

Yep

EXIF tag number 0131, goes by the named "firm-ver", is used by e.g.
Photoshop to store info/leave their fingerprint.
It's a text string of max 999 bytes long and is editable.

But the only thing someone can see is the software name & version.
For example: "Adobe Photoshop 7.0" is stored in the image.
They can't see if you use a legal or illegal version.
They have to confiscate your hard disk to check that out.

N.b.: JPEG 2000, PNG, and GIF doesnt contain EXIF info.

[Snarky]

Yes, obviously the metadata from the original file is going to be lost when you PrintScreen-copy it. It seems a little tedious to me, though, and doesn't work well if the image you've made is too big to fit on the screen at 100% zoom.

Different image formats have different support for metadata. All the main formats (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, TGA, BMP...) have fields where Photoshop could potentially identify itself as the software used to create the file, although I don't know whether it actually does for all of them. (In some cases it might also be possible to tell that a file was saved in Photoshop because of the way the image is stored and stuff, but we're getting a little bit paranoid here...) However, PPM doesn't support such metadata. So if you take your final image and convert it to PPM (in IrfanView, for example), you'll delete the metadata. You can then optionally convert it back again to the original--or a different--file format (again using a non-Photoshop application).

I'd just look for some app that can strip the image metadata instead. IrfanView can do it with JPEG files. Jhead is a command-line app for removing JPEG metadata. JPEG & PNG Stripper works for both of those file formats.

But this is insane 0.o this means that everyone can use illegal software and make others belive he/she made it using free alternatives

I don't know. Seems pretty obvious to me: When you have a file with two pieces of information (the image and the metadata), you can take away one of the parts so that you're left with just the other. What people believe based on the metadata is their concern.

Why does an image even need to tell people what kind of software was used to create it? And what about images that you have worked on in multiple different apps?

[SpacePaw]

Why does an image even need to tell people what kind of software was used to create it? And what about images that you have worked on in multiple different apps?

You have a point but this means you can't really track down people using illegal graphic programs. Not at all 0.o this makes commercial license kind of useless in my head.

[monkey0506]

This is really no different from the fact that MP3s don't have to include licensing info in the file for it to play. That's the reason we're stuck having to deal with all this DRM crap. Admittedly I've used pirated software and downloaded music I didn't pay for.

I don't think it makes me a bad person.

However the copyright laws are there to protect the rights of the copyright owner as well as the legal use of the content. The point at which those who actually have the right to use the content are more inconvenienced than the pirates thanks to antipiracy measures is the point at which I stop caring.

I will still buy CDs to support my favorite bands as well as software that is worth the asking price. I'm not trying to justify it but that's just my feelings on the matter.

But it is facts like this that the software copyrights are so easily circumnavigated that have ultimately led to the antipiracy measures we have today.

[Snarky]

You have a point but this means you can't really track down people using illegal graphic programs. Not at all 0.o this makes commercial license kind of useless in my head.

Not sure why you ever thought you could. You're never going to be able to stop people from cracking an application or copying a digital file. Nor are you going to make it impossible for a dedicated individual to cover his tracks.

That doesn't mean you can't catch people: How many people actually scrub their images before uploading? I'm betting most aren't even aware that this kind of data is part of the image file.

Of course, Adobe doesn't go around checking the net at random for images that have been made in Photoshop (and like people have said, there'd be no way to know whether it was a legal or illegal installation of the app). Whether regular people buy their software or not isn't even really the point of their business model (in fact, they may privately prefer that people pirate Photoshop than use one of the competing alternatives; it helps establish them as the de facto industry standard). Their customers are companies and professional artists, for whom a few hundred dollars for a legitimate license is a minor business expense. Most serious companies aren't going to risk running a keygen or crack (carrying god knows what trojans, keyloggers and other crap) on their internal network; or face the risk of a future software audit, for that matter.

But for the ones that do, that's when this feature comes in handy. If some graphic design firm has delivered a major project, and all the files are stamped Photoshop (good luck trying to run a graphics studio where you tell all your employees to make sure to remove the metadata from all files so that no one will discover you're using pirated software), and Adobe knows that that company hasn't purchased a site license... then they might give them a call!

[cosmicr]

come on really, at $1500 a pop, how many people here actually *own* photoshop??? 90% of casual users are using a pirated copy I reckon.

I havent used it in years now anyway (and I have a licensed version at work). I prefer the GIMP because it loads faster.

[Buckethead]

I have a legal copy of Photoshop only because I could get the entire Abobe package really cheap through school. But for companies and proffesional artist paying the full prize is not too absurd. They live on Photoshop. It is pretty much the industry standard.

Besides it doesn't seem logical that they would spend so much money on tracking people down to see if might have an illigal copy.

[Scummbuddy]

I believe they can check, for instance, flash movie files and see if they were done with the non-commercial student version and give you hell if you're a commercial company.

[zabnat]

I own Photoshop. I have these funny opinions that it's wrong to make money using something you stole from someone else.

[monkey0506]

zabnat I don't think it's that funny at all. I have never done any commercial work at all (using any of these types of software), but if I had I'd definitely feel that there was something wrong about it if I'd used illegal software.

But then again there are those people who would steal a DVD or a watch or MP3 player or car (etc.) and turn around and sell it for a profit. It all depends on your own standards I suppose. To me using a cracked Photoshop for personal and public non-commercial, non-profit efforts isn't some wretched thing to do.

If I were ever to release something commercially and make a huge profit knowing that I'd used a cracked Photoshop...that would eat away at me.

The point of it all is though:



Other than that I agree wholeheartedly with Snarky.

[Matti]

I have never done any commercial work at all (using any of these types of software), but if I had I'd definitely feel that there was something wrong about it if I'd used illegal software.

Even if you're doing all your stuff using an illegal copy of Window$ ? Not me. Fuck them.

If I were ever to release something commercially and make a huge profit knowing that I'd used a cracked Photoshop...that would eat away at me.

Again, not me. I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.

Also, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.

[Pumaman]

I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.

But what gives you the right to make that decision?

Would you walk into a shop and say "I know this TV costs $500, but I don't really have any money so can I have it for free?"

Do you go to a restaurant and not pay the bill if you're running low on cash that day?

Also, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.

There is a difference between individuals and companies, in so far as a company can have a software audit done on them at any time, and there are large fines involved if they are found to have illegal software. Of course, as a private individual you're unlikely ever to be caught.

[Matti]

But what gives you the right to make that decision?

Nobody, that's why I call it philosophy.

Would you walk into a shop and say "I know this TV costs $500, but I don't really have any money so can I have it for free?"

Do you go to a restaurant and not pay the bill if you're running low on cash that day?

No, I wouldn't and I gotta admit that this only works in the internet. But I think it's great when people who develop get support by people who like it. And that the support depends on the user's (financial) situation.

Well, if I'd try to answer your question in detail I'd have to start a large debate on general societal and political issues here, which isn't really what I want (right now). Let's just say, I have some serious problems with how capitalism works and see possibilities to bypass paying for stuff I don't want to pay for as well as a certain social potential in things like filesharing and the donation system.

Also, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.

There is a difference between individuals and companies, in so far as a company can have a software audit done on them at any time, and there are large fines involved if they are found to have illegal software. Of course, as a private individual you're unlikely ever to be caught.

You're right, but I meant it the other way around. There's a difference in illegaly using programs and such from indie developers and large corporations..

Same goes for e.g. music bands. I would purposely try NOT to pay for greedy bands like Metallica or ridiculously expensive bands like U2 or whatsoever, but I'd definitely support not-so-popular newcomer bands.

[Nikolas]

Again, not me. I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.

I'd rearrange your philosophy (to match mine) as such:
"If you have th emoney, pay, if you don't don't use that product, don't watch that movie, don't listen to that mp3".

In fact one of the things that greatly pisses me off is that great greed that comes off people who do pirate. and to explain further. There ARE alternatives to windows, MS office, Cubase, 3-d max, etc. And they are open source and free (most of the times). And I am ready to bet that you can listen to literally 10,000,000 tracks for free in myspace, soundclick, acidworld and the such. Don't you think it's rather ugly to want to listen to the 10-100-100000 that are NOT free? Or to want to use PS, not because you are exchausting it's capabilities, but "because it's PS"?

Also, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.

Can you pin down what exactly the difference is? Because as far as I'm concerned I can't (and neither can you) have a look at the tax books of a corporation, neither of an individual, so you can't really be sure who is loosing money and who is not; who is having to pay huge expenses and who is not; who is cheating the IRS and who is not. So based on that I can't really see how on earth you are judging and putting differences between this and that.

(BTW, since Dave is now financing his own games (The Ivy) does this mean that he's turned into a full monster and you will be downloading his games in torrents from now on?)

[LimpingFish]

It all comes down to how you perceive ownership and what you consider the concept of theft to be.

A television is a physical object, and definite verification of ownership (or lack thereof) can be fairly easy to prove in the conventional sense.