# Can you tell from an image if it has been created with pirated software?



## George & Bill (Jun 26, 2008)

Seems a bit far-fetched, but someone has suggested to me that this is the case - ie, that an image which has been processed using Photoshop, or whatever, will contain information relating to the serial number, or whatever, of the particular version of the software that has been used, thereby enabling the software manufacturer to keep tabs on how many people are using each license, and so on.

Is this true, or complete rubbish?

If it is true - and this is a hypothetical question - is there any software in existence that enables you to 'clean' files so that they cannot be traced?

cheers


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2008)

Some cameras attach various bits of information to the jpeg (and raw) files that they create, (EXIF information) this can include ISO, F Stop, shutterspeed and other information. 

Some image processing software maintains this information even when the file is worked on. 

So technically it may be possible to also encode some information in the image about what software was used to process it. 

I use an old piece of software called Ulead Photoimpact for image manipulation which wipes all the EXIF information from jpeg files when it saves them.


----------



## big eejit (Jun 26, 2008)

Well flickr knows if an image has been edited by Photoshop so it must leave some info in the EXIF data. Never heard about it leaving serial numbers tho.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 26, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> Is this true, or complete rubbish?



Complete rubbish, as far as I know, at least in relation to Photoshop. EXIF data from a camera is a rather different issue and is easy to strip, as has been pointed out already.

Some printers secretly embed tracking dots in their output so the printer can be identified, though.


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 26, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Complete rubbish, as far as I know, at least in relation to Photoshop. EXIF data from a camera is a rather different issue and is easy to strip, as has been pointed out already.
> 
> Some printers secretly embed tracking dots in their output so the printer can be identified, though.



yeah, this is what I was after - I know that the simple fact of photoshop having been used is recorded in the metadata, but I wondered if information as to the specific instance of the software was somehow embedded more covertly. 

Incidentally, does anyone know how to clear the information in the Exif tag relating to exposure details, camera model, etc? Can it be done on-batch, using Bridge for example, as with other meta-data?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 27, 2008)

If you compress the image using Save for Web in Photoshop the exif data is removed, presumably to reduce the size of the file.


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 27, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If you compress the image using Save for Web in Photoshop the exif data is removed, presumably to reduce the size of the file.



hmm, wonder if there's any other way? For example to retain the full file-size but without the exif data?


----------



## winjer (Jun 27, 2008)

Strip it with something like Irfanview (PC) / GraphicConverter (Mac)


----------



## jayeola (Jun 27, 2008)

Here's an example of trying to read any ascii  characters in a photo

```
strings media/images/Christmas_2007_081.jpg  | head -n20 | sort | uniq 
                               
0100
0220
0250
}%@2
2008:01:27 13:21:25
@B@a
DSC-P120
]i~p
KaExif
]p@p\p\p
PrintIM
SONY
SONY DSC
```
Time stamp and make of camera.

Another file. This one is an image that I use for a desktop background.


```
strings media/images/pix/d-top/bluemarble26086.jpg | awk '/^[[:alpha:]]/ || /^[[:digit:]]/' | head
JFIF
AppleMark
0)0s
Zm-%+
9zPh^
EIKEP
I@      E
Hih<T
LBSi
9zRR
```

So that's prolly the software used to make the image.

another desktop image knicked from a site

```
strings media/images/pix/d-top/kelly_rowland_5.jpg | awk '/^[[:alpha:]]/ || /^[[:digit:]]/' | head
JFIF
yExif
Adobe Photoshop 7.0
2006:06:16 18:22:32
JFIF
Adobe_CM
Adobe
b34r
7GWgw
AQaq"
```


----------



## weltweit (Jun 27, 2008)

If the software on your computer knows that it is illegal then it might be able to encode some data into images saying "made with illegal installation". 

If it just knows that it is installation 11176523 then all it can encode is installation 11176523 and perhaps username James Jenkins. 

It would then take the manufacturers database of legitimate installations to be able to tell that your image was created on an illegal installation of the software. 

I would estimate that in amateur photography 9/10 installations of photoshop are illegal, that said I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. 

Personally I prefer to have legal software, especially as I do work with it and get paid and being caught doing paid work on illegal software would be nasty. However because of this I use Ulead Photoimpact for which an up to date version (which can do pretty much everything photoshop can do) costs less than £100.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 27, 2008)

it is  technically posible  but  i doubt a software company would do it.... i think  a lot of the companies know that a lot of people start off and cracked copies   but that keeps  the demand for  legit copies high  too...


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 28, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback chaps. I have never really been worried about it up until now because, as mentioned, it has just been for amateur work. It's only now that I'm doing a bit of paid stuff that I suddenly thought 'hmm - I wonder if I'm being silly?'...


----------

