PS blocks user from editing image of currency

[brycesteiner]

Guess what I learned tonight. I am testing my new lens. So I took several euro bills and taped on the wall then shoot. Since they have very sharp details, I thought they would be good for my purpose.

I shot in RAW and when I tried to open, guess what. This note popped up.

Never bumped into this one before, so I had to give it a try. I shot an image (raw) of Jackson (US $20 bill), and it opened fine in ACR, and was editable there. But, when I loaded the ACR output into PS, I got a similar notice:

Who wud'a thunk it?

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

This is interesting because you are legally allowed to reproduce money in black-and-white or 25% or 150% of the size of the original bills. Adobe should not be stopping you from doing what you are legally allowed to do.

--
Make it a Great day!

 

[stevo23]

I guess there's a lot of halftoning in currency, but inkjet quality can exceed offset quality. So I would think that an inkjet bill would be easy to spot - grain in a single halftone dot as it were. Or so I would think. My wife would know...

Bank notes are printed using intaglio or gravure, nothing so pedestrian as offset.

See, I told you I didn't do it.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

Guess what I learned tonight. I am testing my new lens. So I took several euro bills and taped on the wall then shoot. Since they have very sharp details, I thought they would be good for my purpose.

I shot in RAW and when I tried to open, guess what. This note popped up.

Never bumped into this one before, so I had to give it a try. I shot an image (raw) of Jackson (US $20 bill), and it opened fine in ACR, and was editable there. But, when I loaded the ACR output into PS, I got a similar notice:

Who wud'a thunk it?

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

This is interesting because you are legally allowed to reproduce money in black-and-white or 25% or 150% of the size of the original bills.

Internationally, not correct. Such a copy of a Bank of England note, in England or Wales, is illegal, for example.

Adobe should not be stopping you from doing what you are legally allowed to do.

As a responsible company, Adobe is taking precautions to prevent its products being used for crime.

--
Make it a Great day!

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk

 

[Mike CH]

I guess there's a lot of halftoning in currency, but inkjet quality can exceed offset quality. So I would think that an inkjet bill would be easy to spot - grain in a single halftone dot as it were. Or so I would think. My wife would know...

Bank notes are printed using intaglio or gravure, nothing so pedestrian as offset.

See, I told you I didn't do it.

Real banknotes are printed that way. The counterfeit ones? Well - that would be telling, no?

Regards, Mike

 

[brycesteiner]

you are correct on that side of the ocean, but he was specifically experimenting with the US banknote. That's why I put those facts out.

--
Make it a Great day!

 

[nick101]

It's illegal to photograph Bank of England notes.

More information, from the Bank: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/reproducing_banknotes.aspx#

"Reproduce" not "photograph".

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

It's illegal to photograph Bank of England notes.

More information, from the Bank: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/reproducing_banknotes.aspx#

"Reproduce" not "photograph".

'reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale'

Quoting law incompletely is not a good idea.

 

[gollywop]

Guess what I learned tonight. I am testing my new lens. So I took several euro bills and taped on the wall then shoot. Since they have very sharp details, I thought they would be good for my purpose.

I shot in RAW and when I tried to open, guess what. This note popped up.

Never bumped into this one before, so I had to give it a try. I shot an image (raw) of Jackson (US $20 bill), and it opened fine in ACR, and was editable there. But, when I loaded the ACR output into PS, I got a similar notice:

Who wud'a thunk it?

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

This is interesting because you are legally allowed to reproduce money in black-and-white or 25% or 150% of the size of the original bills. Adobe should not be stopping you from doing what you are legally allowed to do.

Yes. That 25% should be 75%. Here is what the rulesforuse.org says for the US:

I can see, simply from ease of implementation, why Adobe decided on a blanket, one-size-fits-all policy.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[stevo23]

I guess there's a lot of halftoning in currency, but inkjet quality can exceed offset quality. So I would think that an inkjet bill would be easy to spot - grain in a single halftone dot as it were. Or so I would think. My wife would know...

Bank notes are printed using intaglio or gravure, nothing so pedestrian as offset.

See, I told you I didn't do it.

Real banknotes are printed that way. The counterfeit ones? Well - that would be telling, no?

Exactly.

 

[nick101]

It's illegal to photograph Bank of England notes.

More information, from the Bank: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/reproducing_banknotes.aspx#

"Reproduce" not "photograph".

'reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale'

Quoting law incompletely is not a good idea.

Your own partial quotation suggests that any picture of anyone holding one or more banknotes is a criminal offence.

And, as a lawyer will tell you, there's a world of debate to be had about the phrase "on any substance whatsoever".

Clearly, it is not the intention of the Bank to prevent people from taking pictures with banknotes in them; the intention is to prevent people from producing copies/forgeries.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

It's illegal to photograph Bank of England notes.

More information, from the Bank: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/reproducing_banknotes.aspx#

"Reproduce" not "photograph".

'reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale'

Quoting law incompletely is not a good idea.

Your own partial quotation suggests that any picture of anyone holding one or more banknotes is a criminal offence.

Yes.

Whether you would actually be prosecuted for it is one question. Whether you would be convicted, if prosecuted, is another. The Crown would not have a difficult case. And what the punishment might be is yet another.

And, as a lawyer will tell you, there's a world of debate to be had about the phrase "on any substance whatsoever".

Clearly, it is not the intention of the Bank to prevent people from taking pictures with banknotes in them; the intention is to prevent people from producing copies/forgeries.

I'm not sure.

Forgeries (counterfeit notes) are covered by ss14-17 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. That means s18 must be intended to allow the prosecution of people who did not intend their copies to be mistaken for a real note.

(Sorry to be a bit of an anorak about this. I touched on it in my university dissertation many, many years ago.)

 

[stevo23]

It's illegal to photograph Bank of England notes.

More information, from the Bank: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/reproducing_banknotes.aspx#

"Reproduce" not "photograph".

'reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale'

Quoting law incompletely is not a good idea.

Your own partial quotation suggests that any picture of anyone holding one or more banknotes is a criminal offence.

Yes.

Whether you would actually be prosecuted for it is one question. Whether you would be convicted, if prosecuted, is another. The Crown would not have a difficult case. And what the punishment might be is yet another.

And, as a lawyer will tell you, there's a world of debate to be had about the phrase "on any substance whatsoever".

Clearly, it is not the intention of the Bank to prevent people from taking pictures with banknotes in them; the intention is to prevent people from producing copies/forgeries.

I'm not sure.

Forgeries (counterfeit notes) are covered by ss14-17 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. That means s18 must be intended to allow the prosecution of people who did not intend their copies to be mistaken for a real note.

(Sorry to be a bit of an anorak about this. I touched on it in my university dissertation many, many years ago.)

This site may be a good resource to put many of these questions to rest:

http://www.rulesforuse.org/pub/index.php

This assumes of course that one is actually still interested in this thread...

 

[nick101]

(Sorry to be a bit of an anorak about this. I touched on it in my university dissertation many, many years ago.)

Once an anorak, always an anorak

I'm happy to bow to your greater knowledge. Cheers

 

[brycesteiner]

Guess what I learned tonight. I am testing my new lens. So I took several euro bills and taped on the wall then shoot. Since they have very sharp details, I thought they would be good for my purpose.

I shot in RAW and when I tried to open, guess what. This note popped up.

Never bumped into this one before, so I had to give it a try. I shot an image (raw) of Jackson (US $20 bill), and it opened fine in ACR, and was editable there. But, when I loaded the ACR output into PS, I got a similar notice:

Who wud'a thunk it?

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

This is interesting because you are legally allowed to reproduce money in black-and-white or 25% or 150% of the size of the original bills. Adobe should not be stopping you from doing what you are legally allowed to do.

Yes. That 25% should be 75%. Here is what the rulesforuse.org says for the US:

I can see, simply from ease of implementation, why Adobe decided on a blanket, one-size-fits-all policy.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

You are right. That's what I was thinking but not what I was typing.

--
Make it a Great day!