[lobotryas]

I dunno, sounds kind of interesting. Imagine the pain that creators feel when their images get reposted without credit or permission. Sometimes this can even lead to financial losses for the creator.

A lot depends on how this is implemented, but it would be great to have more options than a watermark and low resolution as ways of protecting your work.

[RantyDave]

Right. So that's a DRM argument which is a whole extra world of pain. But using blockchain? Really? Especially since DRM's of various varieties are well understood, standardised and implemented - can't they just use one of those?

And... if it 'aint broke...

[davidgerard]

[author here] The mooted plan is to reuse the DRM from JPEG 2000 part 8 - to generalise it to just-plain-JPEG.

As I note in the piece:

> I have heard of one case of someone trying to use JPEG 2000 DRM — a pornographic site selling DRMed pictures around 2009. Customers had to run a Java applet in their web browser. It didn’t work well, and was a tech support nightmare — I was told about it by one of said tech support people. The porn site gave up on this terrible idea very quickly. The Java applet company apparently went bust a few months later.

JPEG 2000 has a few niche users, who are very happy with it - but they hardly ever go past JPEG 2000 Part 1, the bit that's all about better-compressed images.