The present invention relates to image management and processing, and is particularly illustrated in the context of management of satellite and other aerial imagery.
Acquisition of aerial imagery traces its history back to the Wright brothers, and is now commonly performed from satellite and space shuttle platforms, in addition to aircraft.
While the earliest aerial imagery relied on conventional film technology, a variety of electronic sensors are now more commonly used. Some collect image data corresponding to specific visible, UV or IR frequency spectra (e.g., the MultiSpectral Scanner and Thematic Mapper used by the Landsat satellites). Others use wide band sensors. Still others use radar or laser systems (sometimes stereo) to sense topological features in three dimensions. Other types of image collection rely on electro-optical panchromatic (grayscale), multi-spectral (less than 20 bands) and hyper-spectral (20 bands or more). Some satellites can even collect ribbon imagery (e.g., a raster-like, 1-dimensional terrestrial representation, which is pieced together with other such adjacent ribbons).
The quality of the imagery has also constantly improved. Some satellite systems are now capable of acquiring image and topological data having a resolution of less than a meter. Aircraft imagery, collected from lower altitudes, provides still greater resolution.
A huge quantity of aerial imagery is constantly being collected. Management and coordination of the resulting large data sets is a growing problem. Integrating the imagery with related information is also a problem
In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, digital watermarking technology is employed to help manage such imagery and related information, among other benefits.
The foregoing and additional features and advantages of the present invention will be more readily apparent from the following detailed description with reference to the following figures.
For expository convenience, the following section focuses on satellite and aerial “imagery” to illustrate the principles of the invention. The principles of the invention, however, are equally applicable to other forms of aerial surveillance data and other topographic/mapping information. Accordingly, the term “image” should be used to encompass all such other data sets, and the term “pixel” should be construed to encompass component data from such other data sets.
When new aerial imagery is received, it is generally necessary to identify the precise piece of earth to which it corresponds. This operation, termed “georeferencing” or “geocoding,” can be a convoluted art and science.
In many systems, the georeferencing begins with a master reference system (e.g., latitude and longitude) that takes into account the earth's known deformities from a sphere. Onto this reference system the position of the depicted region is inferred, e.g., by consideration of the satellite's position and orientation (ephemeris data), optical attributes of the satellite's imaging system (e.g., resolution, magnification, etc.), and models of the dispersion/refraction introduced by the earth's atmosphere.
In applications where precise accuracy is required, the foregoing, “ephemeris,” position determination is refined by comparing features in an image with the placement of known features on the earth's surface (e.g., buildings and other man-placed objects, geological features, etc.) and compensating the georeference determination accordingly. Thus, for example, if the actual latitude and longitude of a building is known (e.g., by measurement from a ground survey—“ground truth”), and the corresponding latitude and longitude of that building as indicated in the georeferenced satellite imagery is different, the reference system applied to the satellite data can be altered to achieve a match. (Commonly, three or more such ground truth points are used so as to assure accurate correction.) Of course these processes can involve both manual and automated steps.
Regardless of the georeferencing techniques used, once determined, a digital watermark can be used to convey geo-coordinates (or other georeferencing information—hereafter both referred to as geo-coordinates). The geo-coordinates can be as simple as longitude and latitude, or can be more finely referenced, e.g., with a geovector as described in our related applications. The georeferencing may also include image scale and/or orientation. A digital watermark can include the geo-coordinates as a message or payload. Or the watermark can include an identifier or index that is used to access or interrogate a geo-coordinate database. Some suitable digital watermarking techniques are disclosed in assignee's U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/503,881 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,614,914) and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,122,403. Each of these patent documents is herein incorporated by reference. Of course other digital watermarking techniques can be suitably interchanged with some aspects of the present invention.
One inventive aspect of the present invention is to, when indexes or identifiers are used, randomly or pseudo-randomly vary watermark identifiers used by a particular image capture device or watermarking station. Or a block of identifiers can be pseudo-randomly generated and then delivered to a watermark embedding station. Varying the identifier will help prevent would be pirates from determining which identifiers originate from a particular node or embedding station.
Digital watermarking an aerial image offers a host of advantages. A watermark can be used to convey both static information and dynamic information. Examples of static information are the geo-coordinates of the image depicted in the image, the time and day the image was captured, and a source type indicator. The source type indicator can indicate the imaging source, e.g., governmental or commercial, the imaging sensor used to capture the image, or even the aerial image capture platform, e.g., satellite, unmanned aircraft, etc. The source type indicator can be used to regulate access to the image. Of course the static information can be conveyed directly by a digital watermark or can be accessed via a data record associated with the watermark identifier. Examples of dynamic information are analyst reports, current weather conditions in the depicted area, notes, related images and information, etc.
In our parent applications, identified-above, we disclose techniques by which an image region is embedded with a digital watermark so as to unique identify that particular region of a map, image or photograph (e.g., to identify an image area, building, a road, a lake, etc.). The digital watermark can convey (or point to) information that identifies the subject area's center location, boundaries, corners, or object coordinates, etc. Essentially, when taking an image as a whole, the digital watermark(s) vary from block to block (or area to area) within the image to accommodate the unique identifiers. The block size can be finely referenced, e.g., a digital watermark can be embedded to uniquely identify a block of pixels and even an area represented by a single pixel.
An inventive aspect of the present invention utilities multiple watermarks in an image to provide a user with geo-reference feedback. Consider the following example. A user pulls up an image on her computer monitor via image handling software (e.g., Word (Microsoft), PhotoShop (Adobe), ArcView (ESRI), Imagine (Erdas), RemoteView (Sensor System), etc., etc.). The image previously has been segmented into blocks (or other shapes) and the blocks are embedded with unique digital watermarks. The segmentation is preferably imperceptible to the user. Each watermark per block or area conveys or points to geo-coordinate information that is associated with the block or area. Software instructions (e.g., a plug-in, cooperating or separate program) cooperate with the image handling software and computer's mouse (or touch screen) to provide the feedback. As the user positions her mouse (e.g., as shown on-screen as a standard “arrow” or pointer), the user is presented with the geo-coordinates associated with the subject location. The presentation can take a myriad of forms ranging, e.g., from text, box-up boxes, graphics, etc. (From a more technical viewpoint, a mouse screen-location position is provided from the mouse (or mouse driver) to the operating system and/or to the image handling software (or cooperating instructions). The image handling software (or cooperating software instructions) coordinates the screen-location with the displayed image. A digital watermark corresponding to the pointed-to-area (i.e., the mouse screen-location position) is decoded and the geo-coordinate information is presented, perhaps after accessing additional information from a database. As an alternative, each digital watermark, or a group of digital watermarks, within an image are decoded once the image is pulled up on a monitor. The watermark identifier or payloads are associated with a particular displayed area. Then, when a user selects or points to a particular area, the geo-coordinates can be displayed without first having to decode the digital watermark.).
One alternative implementation, illustrated in
Instead of only presenting the user with geo-coordinates, the feedback can be significantly enhanced. Consider, for example, right-clicking the mouse while the cursor is pointed to a particular image location. The right click activates a pop-up window (or separate application, like a media player or Windows Explorer, Internet browser, etc.). The pop-up window provides news broadcasts, if available, audio/video clip, related text that is associated with the location pointed to by the mouse cursor. From another perspective, the digital watermark embedded in the image at the cursor location is decoded. The embedded watermark carries or points to a geolocation. Information associated with the geolocation (or watermark identifier) is identified and is then presented to the user via a window or media player.
(Of course, it should be appreciated that instead of a mouse cursor, a touch screen, touch pen, optical receptor screen (e.g., one activate by a laser pointer), etc. can be used instead of a mouse. Also, our use of the term “right click” is not limiting. Other conventional techniques of activating computer functionality can be suitably interchanged with a “right-click.”).
High-resolution images are huge in terms of the digital bytes required to represent the image. Often, such large images are down-sampled in order to efficiently display or print image areas. Down sampling may reduce the image resolution but it also reduces the file or area byte size, making the down-sampled image easier to handle. While down sampling provides a faster and perhaps easier way to handle image, it can complicate the watermark detection process. Accordingly, in one implementation, we embedded a digital watermark at different resolutions within the image. Varying the number of pixels used for a watermark component can achieve this “multi-scale” watermark. For example, for a high-resolution scale, a low number of pixels (maybe even only one pixel) is used to convey the watermark component; yet for a lower-resolution scale, the same watermark component is conveyed over a higher number of pixels, oh say a 6×6 block or 20×20 block of pixels. In this way our watermark is detectable at multiple resolutions.
Digital watermarks form the backbone in an image distribution system (
The watermark provides a persistent identifier that is used to manage requests for imagery, as well as tracking and managing the distribution of such images to consumers 1-5. Consumers may include government agencies, news and media, corporations, foreign entities, etc., etc. If desired, every action (or a subset of actions) that is carried out on the image can be reported to the data center for logging. For example, if an image is copied to a disk, such action is reported to the data center. Or if the image is cropped, scaled and printed, such is reported and recorded—thus creating an audit trail. The audit trail can include user or device information as well. The image can be tracked via the identifier even as it is widely distributed. From a system level, a security software module monitors images for a watermark embedded therein. The software module preferably resides on each client system (e.g., computer terminal) in a closed network. Once detected, a watermark is decoded to obtain its identifier. The identifier is reported to a registry or data center, along with the particular action, which triggered the decoding (e.g., printing, storing to disk, editing, etc.).
The digital watermark also simplifies license compliance and reporting. With reference to
Our watermarks can be used in even more robust settings. Consider the system shown in
The digitally watermarked source data (e.g., the captured image) is stored in a registry. The act of storing the source data in the registry preferably triggers a searching process. (Alternatively, an automatic schedule or manual input triggers the searching process.) One objective of the searching is to find information that is related to the source data, e.g., via geolocation or depicted subject matter. The types of information are limitless, and can include related images, notes, reports, data, history, news from a broadcast, geographic information system (GIS) layers and libraries, audio or video, imagery in libraries, geo-calibration data, periodicals and current or archived newspapers, current or historical weather, governmental and cultural information, consumer demographics, etc., etc. Searching can be facilitated in a number of ways. For example, the search may include searching for information associated with the source data's watermark identifier. The value of this searching method is particularly evident when the watermark identifier is associated with a geolocation. In alternative searching implementations the searching includes using the depicted geocoordinates as searching criteria. In other implementations the searching is facilitated by key words associated with depicted areas, associated political regions, associated cultures, depicted structures and/or other information depicted in the source data. The key words can be carried by a digital watermark. The searching becomes fully automated, since a digital watermark decoder can retrieve the key words from a watermark, and then communicate the key words to a search engine associated with specific data libraries. Or suppose, for example, that the source data depicts the Washington Monument. The key word search may involve searching databases, news sources, the internet, etc. for information related to the “Washington monument.” Or if the source data depicts Boise, Id., a key word search may include the terms “Boise” and/or “Idaho.” (Of course, the search can include alternative techniques such as topic searching, directed searching, etc., etc.). The related data, once identified, is associated in the data registry according to the unique identifier. Of course, instead of duplicating the related data, the data repository can include links to or addresses of the related data. Enhanced searching methods, such as those disclosed in assignee's U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 09/636,102 and 10/118,468 (published as US 2002-0188841 A1), can be implemented to populate the registry as well.
If the embedding is being carried out at a ground station, and not the data registry, the registry can serve as a unique identifier repository, to help ensure that identifiers do not collide. A ground station can query the registry to obtain an appropriate identifier. The registry (or perhaps a match filter, as discussed below with respect to
The search can also extend into image libraries. Previously captured images, identified via geo-location or other referencing identifiers, can be associated with the source data as “related imagery.” This image-centric search is shown in
At some point in the registry process, the source data preferably undergoing a georeferencing (or photogrammetric) process (
A match filter is used in connection with the registry (
The match filter can optionally include (or cooperate with) an alert engine. The alert engine monitors the registry and sends out an alert (see
Another inventive feature is to allow for removal of an embedded digital watermark. There may be some image analysis that requires the original, unwatermarked image. In this case, the watermark or a registry record pointed to by the digital watermark can include embedding details (e.g., gain, perceptual masking, etc.), which will allow a watermark remover module to remove a digital watermark. The watermark identifier is read to retrieve the identifier. The identifier is then used to access the watermark embedding information to direct the removal module. In some implementations, the registry records image manipulation, which will help restore the image to a base or original level. The embedding information and, optionally, manipulation information, allows for the near-perfect removal of the watermark. (In an alternative implementation, the watermark is embedded according to a predetermined rule or protocol, and the removal module removes the watermark according to the predetermined rule or protocol. In other cases we employ a so-called “reversible” watermarking technique, as, e.g., discussed in assignee's U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/319,404 (published as US 2003-0149879 A1), Ser. No. 10/319,380 (published as US 2003-0179900 A1), and PCT application no. PCT/US02/40162, published as WO 03/055130).
As indicated, the watermark(s) can identify the imaging system, the date/time of data acquisition, satellite ephemeris data, the identity of intervening systems through which the data passed, etc. One or more watermarks can stamp the image with unique identifiers used in subsequent management of the image data, or in management of meta data associated with the image.
There are additional benefits in creating a georeferenced registry system of images using digital watermarks. A classic notion in most standardizations across all industries is a notion of a “stamp” or “seal” or a similar concept to indicate that some object has successfully completed its appointed rounds. Call it branding, call it formality, or call it a soft form of “authenticity;” the historical momentum behind such a branding concept is huge. In one embodiment, to ensure that a given image is properly georeferenced (under a chosen standard) and/or registered in a database, digitally watermarking the given image provides a formalized “seal of approval.” The digital watermark itself becomes the seal. In one embodiment, a watermark identifier is obtained from an online repository, which issues and tracks authentic identifiers. The repository can be queried to determine the date and time of issue. Or the identifier can be linked to a seal or company logo. Software and/or hardware is configured to routinely read embedded digital watermarks and display an appropriate brand logo, seal, or certification. The “seal” itself then becomes a functional element of a standardization process, serving many functions including permanent attachment to standardized and dynamic metadata.
The foregoing are just exemplary implementations of the present invention. It will be recognized that there are a great number of variations on these basic themes. The foregoing illustrates but a few applications of the detailed technology. There are many others.
Some watermarks used in the foregoing embodiments can be “fragile.” That is, they can be designed to be lost, or to degrade predictably, when the data set into which it is embedded is processed in some manner. Thus, for example, a fragile watermark may be designed so that if an image is JPEG compressed and then decompressed, the watermark is lost. Or if the image is printed, and subsequently scanned back into digital form, the watermark is corrupted in a foreseeable way. (Fragile watermark technology is disclosed, e.g., in application Ser. Nos. 09/234,780, 09/433,104 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,615), Ser. No. 09/498,223 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,574,350), Ser. Nos. 09/562,516, 09/567,405, 09/625,577 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,788,800), and Ser. No. 09/645,779 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,683). Each of these patent applications is herein incorporated by reference.) By such arrangements it is possible to infer how a data set has been processed by the attributes of a fragile watermark embedded in the original data set.
To provide a comprehensive disclosure without unduly lengthening this specification, applicants incorporate by reference, in their entireties, the disclosures of the above-cited patents and applications. The particular combinations of elements and features in the above-detailed embodiments are exemplary only; the interchanging and substitution of these teachings with other teachings in this application and the incorporated-by-reference patents/applications are expressly contemplated.
There are many embodiments discussed herein which may benefit from the inclusion of two different watermarks. For example, a first watermark may include information regarding (or pointing to) georeferencing information, while a second watermark includes a database identifier or location. The second watermark may alternatively include (or point toward) information pertaining to events, people or animals identified in the photograph, occasions, groups, institutions, copyright ownership, etc. Or the embodiment may include both a robust watermark and a copy-tamper fragile watermark.
Although not belabored, artisans will understand that the systems described above can be implemented using a variety of hardware and software systems. One embodiment employs a computer or server with a large disk library, and capable database software (such as is available from Microsoft, Oracle, etc.). The registration, watermarking, and other operations can be performed in accordance with software instructions stored in the disk library or on other storage media, and executed by a processor (or electronic processing circuitry) in the computer as needed. (Alternatively, dedicated hardware, or programmable logic circuits, can be employed for such operations.).
In view of the wide variety of embodiments to which the principles and features discussed above can be applied, it should be apparent that the detailed embodiments are illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention.
This patent application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/376,720, filed Apr. 29, 2002 and 60/383,474, filed May 23, 2002. This patent application is also a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/800,093, filed Mar. 5, 2001 (published as US 2002-0124171 A1; now U.S. Pat. No. 7,061,510). This patent application is also a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/002,954, filed Oct. 23, 2001 (published as US 2002-0122564 A1; now U.S. Pat. No. 7,042,470), which is a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/800,093, filed Mar. 5, 2001. The Ser. No. 10/002,954 application also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/284,163, filed Apr. 16, 2001 and 60/284,776, filed Apr. 18, 2001. The present patent application is also a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/100,233 (published as US 2002-0154144 A1; now U.S. Pat. No. 6,664,976), filed Mar. 13, 2002 and a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/858,336, filed May 15, 2001 (published as US 2002-012.4024 A1; now U.S. Pat. No. 7,098,931). The Ser. No. 10/100,233 application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/284,776. The present patent application is also related to Ser. No. 09/833,013 (published as US 2002-0147910 A1), PCT application PCT/US02/06858 (published as WO 02/071685) and concurrently filed U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/423,834 (published as US 2004-0008866 A1), titled “Geographic Information Systems Using Digital Watermarks.” Each of these above patent documents is herein incorporated by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4504910 | Araki et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
| 4631678 | Angermiiller | Dec 1986 | A |
| 5113445 | Wang | May 1992 | A |
| 5214757 | Mauney et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5278763 | Agnew et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5280537 | Sugiyama | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5329108 | Lamoure | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5385371 | Izawa | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5499294 | Friedman | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5502576 | Ramsay et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5664018 | Leighton | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5734752 | Knox | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5764770 | Schipper et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5790703 | Wang | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799082 | Murphy et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5812962 | Kovac | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5822432 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5825892 | Braudaway et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5859920 | Daly et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5861841 | Gildea et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5864623 | Messina et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5875249 | Mintzer et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5889868 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889898 | Koren et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5901178 | Lee et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5905800 | Moskowitz et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5905819 | Daly | May 1999 | A |
| 5919730 | Gasper et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5946414 | Cass et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5958051 | Renaud et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5964821 | Brunts et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5987136 | Schipper et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5990826 | Mitchell | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6005936 | Shimizu | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6031914 | Tewfik et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6081827 | Reber et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6088394 | Maltby | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6108434 | Cox et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6122403 | Rhoads | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6130741 | Wen et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6148091 | DiMaria | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6175639 | Satoh et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6181802 | Todd | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6185312 | Nakamura et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6198832 | Maes et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6205249 | Moskowitz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6243480 | Zhao et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6246777 | Agarwal et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6249226 | Harrison | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6263438 | Walker et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6282362 | Murphy et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6282648 | Walker et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6289453 | Walker | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6301360 | Bocionek et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6310956 | Morito et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6311214 | Rhoads | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6320829 | Matsumoto et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324573 | Rhoads | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6332149 | Warmus et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6332193 | Glass et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6341350 | Miyahara et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6343138 | Rhoads | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6351439 | Miwa et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6385329 | Sharma et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6389151 | Carr et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6400826 | Chen et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6401206 | Khan et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6408082 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6408331 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6411725 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6418232 | Nakano et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421145 | Kurita et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421450 | Nakano | Jul 2002 | B2 |
| 6427020 | Rhoads | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6448979 | Schena | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6463416 | Messina | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6476833 | Moshfeghi | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6493514 | Stocks et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496802 | van Zoest | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6498984 | Agnew et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6504571 | Narayanaswami et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6505160 | Levy et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6512835 | Numao | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6522770 | Seder et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6526155 | Wang et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529615 | Hendrickson et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6532541 | Chang et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6542927 | Rhoads | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6556688 | Ratnakar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6571021 | Braudaway | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6611607 | Davis et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6614914 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6625297 | Bradley | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6628802 | Braudaway et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6636249 | Rekimoto | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6650761 | Rodriguez et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6664976 | Lofgren et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6683966 | Tian et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6707927 | Kita et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6879701 | Rhoads | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6915432 | Braudaway et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6950519 | Rhoads | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 7042470 | Rhoads et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7061510 | Rhoads | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7084903 | Narayanaswami et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7098931 | Patterson et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7099492 | Rhoads | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7184572 | Rhoads et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7197160 | Rhoads et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7254249 | Rhoads et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7274475 | Ito | Sep 2007 | B1 |
| 7502489 | Rhoads | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7502490 | Rhoads et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7650008 | Rhoads | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 20010001854 | Schena et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
| 20010019611 | Hilton | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010022667 | Yoda | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010023421 | Messina | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010026377 | Ikegami | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010026616 | Tanaka | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010026629 | Oki | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010030759 | Hayashi et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010031064 | Donescu et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010033674 | Chen et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010034835 | Smith | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010039546 | Moore et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010046307 | Wong | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010051964 | Warmus et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010054150 | Levy | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010055407 | Rhoads | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020001395 | Davis et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020002679 | Murakami et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020006212 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020009209 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020033844 | Levy et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020044690 | Burgess | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046178 | Morito et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020057340 | Fernandez | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059520 | Murakami et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065844 | Robinson | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020069370 | Mack et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020075298 | Schena et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020080396 | Silverbrook et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095586 | Doyle et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095601 | Hind et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020106105 | Pelly et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020122564 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020124024 | Patterson et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020124171 | Rhoads | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020124173 | Stone | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020126869 | Wang et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020135600 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020136531 | Harradine | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147910 | Brundage et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020159765 | Maruyama et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020168069 | Tehranchi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020170966 | Hannigan et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188841 | Jones et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020191810 | Fudge et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030011684 | Narayanaswami | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030012562 | Lawandy et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030032033 | Anglin et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030040326 | Levy et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030040957 | Rodriguez et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030048908 | Hamilton | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030053654 | Patterson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030063319 | Umeda et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069693 | Snapp et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074556 | Chapman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030083098 | Yamazaki et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030083957 | Olefson | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030090690 | Katayama et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030215110 | Rhoads et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040162981 | Wong | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040201676 | Needham | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040221244 | Baldino | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20060117180 | Kalker | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20070052730 | Patterson et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070116325 | Rhoads et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20080025561 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080080737 | Rhoads et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20090238403 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20100067734 | Rhoads | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0 947 953 | Oct 1999 | EP |
| 0 953 938 | Nov 1999 | EP |
| 935 872 | Nov 2001 | EP |
| 1220152 | Jul 2002 | EP |
| 2371934 | Aug 2002 | GB |
| 2000 41144 | Feb 2000 | JP |
| WO9917537 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| WO 0105075 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO0124113 | Apr 2001 | WO |
| WO0139121 | May 2001 | WO |
| WO0176253 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| WO0203328 | Jan 2002 | WO |
| WO0233650 | Apr 2002 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Zhu et al., “Multiresolution Watermarking for Images and Video”, Jun. 1999, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 545-550. |
| Barni et al., “Text-Based Geometric Normalization for Robust Watermarking of Digital Maps”, 2001, IEEE, pp. 1082-1085. |
| Kang et al., “A Vector Watermarking Using the Generalized Square Mask”, 2001, IEEE, pp. 234-236. |
| Yeo et al., “Watermarking 3D Objects for Verification”, Jan.-Feb. 1999, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, pp. 36-45. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 09/571,422, filed May 15, 2000, Rodriguez et al. |
| Notice of Allowance (dated Dec. 17, 2004), Appeal Brief (dated Sep. 20, 2004) and Office Action (dated May 7, 2004) from parent U.S. Appl. No. 09/800,093. |
| Notice of Allowance (dated Dec. 17, 2004), Appeal Brief (dated Sep. 20, 2004) and Office Action (dated May 14, 2004) from assignee's U.S. Appl. No. 10/002,954. |
| Bender et al., “Techniques for Data Hiding,” SPIE vol. 2420, Jan. 1995, pp. 164-173. |
| Caronni, “Assuring Ownership Rights for Digital Images,” Published in the Proceedings of ‘Reliable IT Systems,’ VIS '95, HH. Brüggemann and W. Gerhardt-Häckl (Ed.), Vieweg Publishing Company, Germany, 1995, Jun. 14, 1994, 10 pages. |
| Carp, “Seven wonders of the imaging world”, International Contact, Oct./Nov. 2000, pp. 36/I-36/IV. |
| “Digital Watermarking, The Unseen Advantage,” Geo Informatics, Jun. 2001 (3 pages). |
| Friedman, “The Trustworthy Digital Camera: Restoring Credibility to the Photographic Image,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 39, No. 4, Nov. 1993, pp. 905-910. |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20010305033241/http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/researchDevelopement/technologyFeatures/digitalWatermarking.shtml, “Invisible Watermarking”, archive date of Mar. 5, 2001 (4 pages, including Internet Archive Wayback Machine cover page). |
| Koch et al., “Digital Copyright Labeling: Providing Evidence of Misuse and Tracking Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Materials,” Oasis Magazine, Dec. 1995, 3 pages. |
| Manjunath, “Image Processing in the Alexandria Digital Library Project,” Proc. IEEE Int. Form on Research and Tech. Advances in Digital Libraries—ADL '98, pp. 180-187. |
| Seybold Seminars: Keynote: Digital Imaging Day, comments from panel including Daniel Carp, panel discussion occurring on Aug. 28, 2000 (8 pages). |
| Yeung et al., “Digital Watermarks: Shedding Light on the Invisible,” Nov.-Dec. 1998, IEEE Micro vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 32-41. |
| Zhao et al., “Embedding Robust Labels Into Images for Copyright Protection,” Proc. of the International Congress on Intellectual Property Rights for Specialized Information, Knowledge and New Technologies (Vienna, Austria) Aug. 21-25, 1995, 10 pages. |
| Zhao “Digital Watermark Mobile Agents,” Proc. of NISSC'99, Arlington, VA, Oct. 18-21, 1999, pp. 138-146. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20040046774 A1 | Mar 2004 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60376720 | Apr 2002 | US | |
| 60383474 | May 2002 | US | |
| 60284163 | Apr 2001 | US | |
| 60284776 | Apr 2001 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 09800093 | Mar 2001 | US |
| Child | 10423489 | US | |
| Parent | 10002954 | Oct 2001 | US |
| Child | 09800093 | US | |
| Parent | 09800093 | US | |
| Child | 10002954 | US | |
| Parent | 10423489 | US | |
| Child | 10002954 | US | |
| Parent | 10100233 | Mar 2002 | US |
| Child | 10423489 | US | |
| Parent | 09858336 | May 2001 | US |
| Child | 10100233 | US |