Talk:Watermark (data file)

Untitled

The information information on the cited page is public domain, and it has been published in a magazine (Baldoza, A. and Sieffert, M. "Methods for Detecting Tampering in Digital Images." AFRL Technology Horizons®, vol 1, no 1 (Mar 00), 15-17.) The article is also marked "public release". The home page of the article is quoted, and there can be no doubt that it's a quote. The information contained in the article is not revolutionary science, it merely contains technical stuff about applications of watermarks and fingerprints ..

Indeed it is. Apologies, I missed that on the webpage. Tag removed and cleanup tag added. Tonywalton

| Talk 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the homepage of the article is not quoted. Check what's actually in the http ref at the top. That's the title of the article, not its URL. Tonywalton

| Talk 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge with Digital Watermarking

I just noticed that there's a proposal to merge this page with Digital watermarking

I think that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

Digital watermarking is the usual expression for referring to its subject
Digital watermarking is usually understood to mean the embedding of a robust watermark, which is not the same as tamper-proofing, although they are related
The subject Watermark (data file) sounds a bit silly, given that Digital Watermarking is probably a lot more topical and relevant to most readers than the old-fashioned form
Although the Digital watermarking article is not at all comprehensive at the moment, it could be turned into a good one: there's nothing wrong with the subject

cojoco (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Digital Watermarking and this article are two different things. /Poxnar ^(talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This old unsupported merge proposal is hereby closed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]