Patent Grant
7068812
The invention relates to a method of and system for processing a digital image to determine if it was derived from an encoded image.
Various images in traditional print or photographic media are commonly distributed to many users. Examples include the distribution of prints of paintings to the general public and photographs and film clips to and among the media. Owners may wish to audit usage of their images in print and electronic media, and so require a method to analyze print, film and digital images to determine if they were obtained directly from the owners or derived from their images. For example, the owner of an image may desire to limit access or use of the image. To monitor and enforce such a limitation, it would be beneficial to have a method of verifying that a subject image is copied or derived from the owner's image. The method of proof should be accurate and incapable of being circumvented. Further, the method should be able to detect unauthorized copies that have been resized, rotated, cropped, or otherwise altered slightly.
In the computer field, digital signatures have been applied to non-image digital data in order to identify the origin of the data. For various reasons these prior art digital signatures have not been applied to digital image data. One reason is that these prior art digital signatures are lost if the data to which they are applied are modified. Digital images are often modified each time they are printed, scanned, copied, or photographed due to unintentional “noise” created by the mechanical reproduction equipment used. Further, it is often desired to resize, rotate, crop or otherwise intentionally modify the image. Accordingly, the existing digital signatures are unacceptable for use with digital images.
The invention includes a method and system for embedding image signatures within visual images, applicable in the preferred embodiments described herein to digital representations as well as other media such as print or film. The signatures identify the source or ownership of images and distinguish between different copies of a single image.
In a preferred embodiment described herein, a plurality of signature points are selected that are positioned within an original image having pixels with pixel values. The pixel values of the signature points are adjusted by an amount detectable by a digital scanner. The adjusted signature points form a digital signature that is stored for future identification of subject images derived from the image.
The foregoing and other features of the invention will be more readily apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings.
The present invention includes a method and system for embedding a signature into an original image to create a signed image. A preferred embodiment includes selecting a large number of candidate points in the original image and selecting a number of signature points from among the candidate points. The signature points are altered slightly to form the signature. The signature points are stored for later use in auditing a subject image to determine whether the subject image is derived from the signed image.
The signatures are encoded in the visible domain of the image and so become part of the image and cannot be detected or removed without prior knowledge of the signature. A key point is that while the changes manifested by the signature are too slight to be visible to the human eye, they are easily and consistently recognizable by a common digital image scanner, after which the signature is extracted, interpreted and verified by a software algorithm.
In contrast to prior art signature methods used on non-image data, the signatures persist through significant image transformations that preserve the visible image but may completely change the digital data. The specific transforms allowed include resizing the image larger or smaller, rotating the image, uniformly adjusting color, brightness and/or contrast, and limited cropping. Significantly, the signatures persist through the process of printing the image to paper or film and rescanning it into digital form.
Shown in
An example of the output of the scanner 20 to the computer 12 is a digital image 24 shown in
The digital image 24 is depicted using numerous pixels 24 having various pixel values. In the gray-scale image 24 the pixel values are luminance values representing a brightness level varying from black to white. In a color image the pixels have color values and luminance values, both of which being pixel values. The color values can include the values of any components in a representation of the color by a vector.
The digital image 24 shown in
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention numerous candidate points are located within the original image. Signature points are selected from among the candidate points and are altered to form a signature. The signature is a pattern of any number of signature points. In a preferred embodiment, the signature is a binary number between 16 and 32 bits in length. The signature points may be anywhere within an image, but are preferably chosen to be as inconspicuous as possible. Preferably, the number of signature points is much greater than the number of bits in a signature. This allows the signature to be redundantly encoded in the image. Using a 16 to 32 bit signature, 50–200 signature points are preferable to obtain multiple signatures for the image.
A preferred embodiment of the invention locates candidate points by finding relative maxima and minima, collectively referred to as extrema, in the image. The extrema represent local extremes of luminance or color.
Relative extrema are preferred signature points for two major reasons. First, they are easily located by simple, well known processing. Second, they allow signature points to be encoded very inconspicuously.
One of the simplest methods to determine relative extrema is to use a “Difference of Averages” technique. This technique employs predetermined neighborhoods around each pixel 26; a small neighborhood 28 and a large neighborhood 30, as shown in
Using the image of
Based on pixels 26A–26G, there may be a relative maximum at pixel 26D, whose Difference of Averages of 1.59 is greater than the Difference of Averages for the other examined pixels in the row. To determine whether pixel 26D is a relative maximum rather than merely a small undulation, its Difference of Averages must be compared with the Difference of Averages for the pixels surrounding it in a larger area.
Preferably, extrema within 10% of the image size of any side are not used as signature points. This protects against loss of signature points caused by the practice of cropping the border area of an image. It is also preferable that relative extrema that are randomly and widely spaced are used rather than those that appear in regular patterns.
Using the Difference of Averages technique or other known techniques, a large number of extrema are obtained, the number depending on the pixel density and contrast of the image. Of the total number of extrema found, a preferred embodiment chooses 50 to 200 signature points. This may be done manually by a user choosing with the keyboard 16, mouse 18, or other pointing device each signature point from among the extrema displayed on the display monitor 14. The extrema may be displayed as a digital image with each point chosen by using the mouse or other pointing device to point to a pixel or they may be displayed as a list of coordinates which are chosen by keyboard, mouse, or other pointing device. Alternatively, the computer 12 can be programmed to choose signature points randomly or according to a preprogrammed pattern.
One bit of binary data is encoded in each signature point in the image by adjusting the pixel values at and surrounding the point. The image is modified by making a small, preferably 2%–10% positive or negative adjustment in the pixel value at the exact signature point, to represent a binary zero or one. The pixels surrounding each signature point, in approximately a 5.times.5 to 10.times.10 grid, are preferably adjusted proportionally to ensure a continuous transition to the new value at the signature point. A number of bits are encoded in the signature points to form a pattern which is the signature for the image.
In a preferred embodiment, the signature is a pattern of all of the signature points. When auditing a subject image, if a statistically significant number of potential signature points in the subject image match corresponding signature points in the signed image, then the subject image is deemed to be derived from the signed image. A statistically significant number is somewhat less than 100%, but enough to be reasonably confident that the subject image was derived from the signed image.
In an alternate embodiment, the signature is encoded using a redundant pattern that distributes it among the signature points in a manner that can be reliably retrieved using only a subset of the points. One embodiment simply encodes a predetermined number of exact duplicates of the signature. Other redundant representation methods, such as an error-correcting code, may also be used.
In order to allow future auditing of images to determine whether they match the signed image, the signature is stored in a database in which it is associated with the original image. The signature can be stored by associating the bit value of each signature point together with x-y coordinates of the signature point. The signature may be stored separately or as part of the signed image. The signed image is then distributed in digital form.
As discussed above, the signed image may be transformed and manipulated to form a derived image. The derived image is derived from the signed image by various transformations, such as resizing, rotating, adjusting color, brightness and/or contrast, cropping and converting to print or film. The derivation may take place in multiple steps or processes or may simply be the copying of the signed image directly.
It is assumed that derivations of these images that an owner wishes to track include only applications which substantially preserve the resolution and general quality of the image. While a size reduction by 90%, a significant color alteration or distinct-pixel-value reduction may destroy the signature, they also reduce the image's significance and value such that no auditing is desired.
In order to audit a subject image according to a preferred embodiment, a user identifies the original image of which the subject image is suspected of being a duplicate. For a print or film image, the subject image is scanned to create a digital image file. For a digital image, no scanning is necessary. The subject digital image is normalized using techniques as described below to the same size, and same overall brightness, contrast and color profile as the unmodified original image. The subject image is analyzed by the method described below to extract the signature, if present, and compare it to any signatures stored for that image.
The normalization process involves a sequence of steps to undo transformations previously made to the subject image, to return it as close as possible to the resolution and appearance of the original image. It is assumed that the subject image has been manipulated and transformed as described above. To align the subject image with the original image, a preferred embodiment chooses three or more points from the subject image which correspond to points in the original image. The three or more points of the subject image are aligned with the corresponding points in the original image. The points of the subject image not selected are rotated and resized as necessary to accommodate the alignment of the points selected.
For example,
After the subject image is aligned, the next step is to normalize the brightness, contrast and/or color of the subject image. Normalizing involves adjusting pixel values of the subject image to match the value-distribution profile of the original image. This is accomplished by a technique analogous to that used to align the subject image. A subset of the pixels in the subject image are adjusted to equal corresponding pixels in the original image. The pixels not in the subset are adjusted in proportion to the adjustments made to the pixels in the subset. The pixels of the subject image corresponding to the signature points should not be among the pixels in the subset. Otherwise any signature points in the subject image will be hidden from detection when they are adjusted to equal corresponding pixels in the original image.
In a preferred embodiment, the subset includes the brightest and darkest pixels of the subject image. These pixels are adjusted to have luminance values equal to the luminance values of corresponding pixels in the original image. To ensure that any signature points can be detected, no signature points should be selected during the signature embedding process described above that are among the brightest and darkest pixels of the original image. For example, one could use pixels among the brightest and darkest 3% for the adjusting subset, after selecting signature points among less than the brightest and darkest 5% to ensure that there is no overlap.
When the subject image is fully normalized, it is preferably compared to the original image. One way to compare images is to subtract one image from the other. The result of the subtraction is a digital image that includes any signature points that were present in the subject image. These signature points, if any, are compared to the stored signature points for the signed image. If the signature points do not match, then the subject image is not an image derived from the signed image, unless the subject image was changed substantially from the signed image.
In an alternative embodiment, the normalized subject image is compared directly with the signed image instead of subtracting the subject image from the original image. This comparison involves subtracting the subject image from the signed image. If there is little or no image resulting from the subtraction, then the subject image equals to the signed image, and therefore has been derived from the signed image.
In another alternate embodiment, instead of normalizing the entire subject image, only a section of the subject image surrounding each potential signature point is normalized to be of the same general resolution and appearance as a corresponding section of the original image. This is accomplished by selecting each potential signature point of the subject image and selecting sections surrounding each potential signature point. The normalization of each selected section proceeds according to methods similar to those disclosed above for normalizing the entire subject image.
Normalizing each selected section individually allows each potential signature point of the subject image to be compared directly with a corresponding signature point of the signed image. Preferably, an average is computed for each potential signature point by averaging the pixel value of the potential signature point with the pixel values of a plurality of pixels surrounding the potential signature point. The average computed for each signature is compared directly with a corresponding signature point of the signed image.
While the methods of normalizing and extracting a signature from a subject image as described above are directed to luminance values, similar methods may be used for color values. Instead of or in addition to normalizing by altering luminance values, the color values of the subject image can also be adjusted to equal corresponding color values in an original color image. However, it is not necessary to adjust color values in order to encode a signature in or extract a signature from a color image. Color images use pixels having pixel values that include luminance values and color values. A digital signature can be encoded in any pixel values regardless of whether the pixel values are luminance values, color values, or any other type of pixel values. Luminance values are preferred because alterations may be made more easily to luminance values without the alterations being visible to the human eye.
From the foregoing it will be appreciated that, although specific embodiments of the invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited except as by the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of copending application Ser. No. 10/113,398, filed Mar. 27, 2002, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/408,878, filed Sep. 29, 1999 (now abandoned), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/317,784, filed May 24, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,072,888), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/074,632, filed May 7, 1998 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,930,377), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/969,072, filed Nov. 12, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,160), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/923,841, filed Jul. 31, 1992 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,788).
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3845391 | Crosby | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3885217 | Cintron | May 1975 | A |
| 3914877 | Hines | Oct 1975 | A |
| 3984624 | Waggener | Oct 1976 | A |
| 4225967 | Miwa | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4237484 | Brown et al. | Dec 1980 | A |
| 4238849 | Gassmann | Dec 1980 | A |
| 4310180 | Mowry, Jr. et al. | Jan 1982 | A |
| 4313197 | Maxemchuk | Jan 1982 | A |
| 4367488 | Leventer et al. | Jan 1983 | A |
| 4528588 | Löfberg | Jul 1985 | A |
| 4547804 | Greenberg | Oct 1985 | A |
| 4672605 | Hustig et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4701805 | Maeshima | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4750173 | Blüthgen | Jun 1988 | A |
| 4790566 | Boissier et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
| 4807031 | Broughton et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4876617 | Best et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4939515 | Adelson | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4943973 | Werner | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4969041 | O'Grady et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4972471 | Gross et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5010405 | Schreiber et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5091966 | Bloomberg et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
| 5146457 | Veldhuis et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5200822 | Bronfin et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5228056 | Schilling | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5243423 | DeJean et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5280537 | Sugiyama et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5315098 | Tow | May 1994 | A |
| 5319453 | Copriviza et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5319735 | Preuss et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5337361 | Wang et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5374976 | Spannenburg | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5404160 | Schober et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5461426 | Limberg et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5481377 | Udagawa et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5559559 | Jungo et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5652626 | Kawakami et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5671277 | Ikenoue et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5707286 | Carlson | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5721788 | Powell et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5809160 | Powell et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5857038 | Owada et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5930377 | Powell et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6072888 | Powell et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6137892 | Powell et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6301369 | Powell et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6307950 | Powell et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6317505 | Powell et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6385330 | Powell et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6459803 | Powell et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6614915 | Powell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6628801 | Powell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6678392 | Powell et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 20020054356 | Kurita et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 29 43 436 | May 1981 | DE |
| 0 493 091 | Jul 1992 | EP |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20050147276 A1 | Jul 2005 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 10113398 | Mar 2002 | US |
| Child | 11074997 | US | |
| Parent | 09408878 | Sep 1999 | US |
| Child | 10113398 | US | |
| Parent | 09317784 | May 1999 | US |
| Child | 09408878 | US | |
| Parent | 09074632 | May 1998 | US |
| Child | 09317784 | US | |
| Parent | 08969072 | Nov 1997 | US |
| Child | 09074632 | US | |
| Parent | 07923841 | Jul 1992 | US |
| Child | 08969072 | US |
