Graphics in/for Digital Libraries

DIGITAL WATERMARKING OF TEXT, IMAGE, AND

VIDEO DOCUMENTS
JONATHAN K. SU{, FRANK HARTUNG and BERND GIROD
Telecommunications Laboratory, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen Germany
AbstractThe ease of reproduction, distribution, and manipulation of digital documents creates pro-
blems for authorized parties that wish to prevent illegal use of such documents. To this end, digital
watermarking has been proposed as a last line of defense. A digital watermark is an imperceptible,
robust, secure message embedded directly into a document. The watermark is imperceptible both per-
ceptually and statistically. Robustness means that the watermark cannot be removed or modied unless
the document is altered to the point of no value. The watermark is secure if unauthorized parties can-
not erase or modify it. Current watermarking schemes may be viewed as spread-spectrum communi-
cations systems, which transmit a message redundantly using a low-amplitude, pseudo-noise carrier
signal. An example highlights the basic mechanisms and properties of spread spectrum and their re-
lation to watermarking. Finally, specic issues in watermarking of text, images, and video are discussed,
along with watermarking examples. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Key words: digital watermarking, data hiding, copyright protection, spread-spectrum communications.
1. INTRODUCTION
Digital media are replacing traditional analog
media and will continue to do so. By digital media,
we mean digital representations of audio, text docu-
ments, images, video, three-dimensional scenes, etc.
These media oer many benets over their analog
predecessors (e.g., audio and video cassettes).
Unlike analog media, digital media can be stored,
duplicated, and distributed with no loss of delity.
Digital media can also be manipulated and modied
easily.
Clearly, digital media oer many benets, but
they also create problems for parties who wish to
prevent illegal reproduction and distribution of
valuable digital media (e.g., copyrighted, commer-
cial, privileged, sensitive, and/or secret documents).
Two classic methods for protecting documents are
encryption and copy protection. However, once
decrypted, a document can be copied and distribu-
ted easily, and copy-protection mechanisms can
often be bypassed.
As a safeguard against failures of encryption and
copy protection, digital watermarking has been pro-
posed as a `last line of defense' against unauthor-
ized distribution of valuable digital media [1, 2]. A
digital watermarking system embeds information
directly into a document. For example, information
about copyrights, ownership, timestamps, and the
legitimate receiver could be embedded. Digital
watermarking cannot by itself prevent copying,
modication, and re-distribution of documents.
However, if encryption and copy protection fail,
watermarking allows the document to be traced
back to its rightful owner and to the point of
unauthorized use.
2. DIGITAL WATERMARKING
Digital watermarking requires elements from
many disciplines, including signal processing, tele-
communications, cryptography, psychophysics, and
law. In this paper, we focus on the process of
embedding and retrieving watermarks in formatted
text documents, images, and video. We therefore
emphasize the signal processing and telecommunica-
tions aspects of watermarking. Because digital
watermarking is a fairly new topic, unless water-
marks can be reliably inserted and recovered,
higher-level issues such as protocols are moot.
An eective watermark should have several prop-
erties, listed below, whose importance will vary
depending upon the application.
Robustness. The watermark should be reliably
detectable after alterations to the marked docu-
ment. Robustness means that it must be dicult
(ideally impossible) to defeat a watermark with-
out degrading the marked document severelyso
severely that the document is no longer useful or
has no (commercial) value.
Imperceptibility or a low degree of obtrusive-
ness. To preserve the quality of the marked docu-
ment, the watermark should not noticeably
distort the original document. Ideally, the orig-
inal and marked documents should be percep-
tually identical.
Security. Unauthorized parties should not be
able to read or alter the watermark. Ideally, the
Comput. & Graphics, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 687695, 1998
# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0097-8493/98/$ - see front matter
PII: S0097-8493(98)00089-2
{ Tel.: +49-9131-85-27103; Fax: +49-9131-85-28849; E-
mail:[email protected].
687
watermark should not even be detectable by
unauthorized parties.
Fast embedding and/or retrieval. The speed of a
watermark embedding algorithm is important for
applications where documents are marked `on-
the-y' (i.e., when they are distributed). The
large bandwidth necessary for video also requires
fast embedding methods. However, since owner-
ship disputes will likely take weeks or months to
resolve, a watermark recovery algorithm may
emphasize reliable detection over speed.
No reference to original document. For some
applications, it is necessary to recover the water-
mark without requiring the original, unmarked
document (which would otherwise be stored in a
secure archive).
Multiple watermarks. It may also be desirable
to embed multiple watermarks in a document.
For example, an image might be marked with a
unique watermark each time it is downloaded.
Unambiguity. A watermark must convey un-
ambiguous information about the rightful owner
of a copyright, point of distribution, etc. This
requirement is a cryptographic and protocol
issue [36] and not covered in this paper.
Of these properties, robustness, imperceptibility,
and security are usually the most important. When
speaking of robustness, we often talk about attacks
on a watermark. An attack is an operation on the
marked document that, intentionally or not, may
degrade the watermark and make the watermark
harder to detect. For text documents, an attack
might consist of photocopying. For images and
video, compression (e.g., JPEG or MPEG), ltering,
cropping, resizing, and other signal processing
manipulations (even printing and rescanning) must
not destroy the watermark.
Digital watermarking can, and should, be viewed
as a communications problem [79]. Figure 1 pro-
vides a block diagram of this interpretation. An
authorized party wishes to transmit a digital mess-
age (e.g., copyright, ownership, or timestamp infor-
mation) through a hostile and extremely noisy
communications channel. The document thus acts
like noise, and attacks introduce additional distor-
tions. In a well-designed watermarking system,
watermark recovery should not require the original
document, which is treated as interfering noise.
From the communications viewpoint, a water-
mark can be defeated in two ways: erasure/altera-
tion and jamming. In the rst case, an attacker
estimates a portion of the watermark and removes
or alters enough of it so that it cannot be reliably
detected. The second case, jamming, refers to docu-
ment alterations that do not remove the watermark
but make it more dicult to detect.
In some scenarios, it is desired to distribute the
same document and embed a dierent watermark in
each copy. With many marked versions of the same
document, an attacker can conduct another type of
attack called a collusion attack [10]. Items that dier
between marked documents are known to be water-
mark components. Methods for preventing such
attacks appear in [11].
3. SPREAD-SPECTRUM EMBEDDING AND RECOVERY
Specic techniques for embedding watermarks
dier, depending on the type of document (e.g.,
text, image, or video). However, most current
watermarking methods [2, 1215] can be inter-
pretedsometimes very looselyas forms of
spread-spectrum communications, or simply spread
spectrum (SS) [16, 17]. Spread spectrum has been
studied for years for both military and civilian ap-
plications. We present an example of a SS system
and then highlight the properties that make SS use-
ful for watermarking.
3.1. An example spread-spectrum system
We now present a discrete-time example{ of a
common form of SS known as direct-sequence
spread spectrum (DSSS). Although highly simplied,
the example is sucient to convey the basic mech-
anisms and principles of SS. Even though this
example deals with one-dimensional signals, it
extends directly to multi-dimensional signals such
as images as well.
Transmission (Watermark Embedding). We
begin with a digital message, represented by a
sequence of bits b
0
b
1
b
2
, where each bit may be
either +1 or 1. The message contains the infor-
mation that we wish to embed as a watermark.
For transmission (i.e., watermark embedding),
each message bit b
i
is rst repeated N times{ to
Fig. 1. Communications model of watermarking
{ Spread spectrum is usually presented in a continuous-
time framework. For digital watermarking, the signals are
discrete-time, but the main concepts and results are the
same as for continuous time.
{ N is known as the `chip rate.'
J. K. Su et al. 688
produce a redundant message m[n]. For example,
if N = 3, then m[n] is the sequence
b
0
b
0
b
0
b
1
b
1
b
1
b
2
b
2
b
2
.
Next, the repeated message m[n] is modulated
by a carrier signal c[n] and scaled by a factor

EaN
_
. Hence, the transmitted signal is
s[n] =

EaN
_
m[n] c[n]; this signal is embedded as
a watermark. Figure 2 gives a block diagram of
the embedding process.
For watermarking, s[n] is transmitted
(embedded) by mapping s[n] into changes in the
original document. For example, in text water-
marking, s[n] could be used to perturb line spa-
cings. In image watermarking, s[n] might be
added directly to pixel values or transform coe-
cients.
The Spreading Sequence. The carrier c[n] is
called the spreading sequence, and it has several
special properties:
c[n]E{1, 1], for any n; (1)

N1
n=0
c[n]c[n Ni ] = N, for any i; (2)
1
N

N1
n=0
c[n] = 0; (3)
1
N

N1
n=0
c[n]c[n k] = d[k], for 0kN 1X (4)
In practice, these properties can be closely ap-
proximated, so we assume equality holds.
Equation (1) means that c[n] is binary-valued,
although non-binary (e.g., Gaussian-distributed)
sequences are also possible. Equations (2) and
(3), and Equation (4) are referred to as the
periodicity, zero-mean, and (periodic) autocorre-
lation properties, respectively.
The statistical behavior of c[n] is similar to
that of noise, although c[n] is not a random pro-
cess. For security reasons, c[n] should be easy to
generate with the proper key, but without the
key, it should be dicult to reconstruct the com-
plete signal c[n] from only a short segment of it.
Signals with these properties are known as
pseudo-noise signals.
The Watermark Channel. After transmission
(embedding), s[n] passes through a channel,
which introduces various types of interference.
The interference is typically modeled as additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) v[n] with variance
s
2
v
aN. The received signal is thus
r[n] = s[n] + v[n]. The channel (and receiver) are
diagrammed in Fig. 3.
In watermarking, v[n] includes interference
from the original document, as well as attacks.
An example of a text-document attack is printing
Fig. 2. Spread spectrum watermark embedding example
Fig. 3. Spread spectrum watermark recovery example
Digital watermarking in documents 689
and photocopying. Image and video watermarks
could be subject to attacks such as compression
with JPEG or MPEG, respectively. Although
images do not conform to the AWGN model,
the receiver can use pre-ltering to remove most
of the correlated noise introduced by the original
image [18]. For simplicity, we use the AWGN
model in this discussion, although more sophisti-
cated attacks are possible [10, 19].
Reception (Watermark Recovery). Given r[n], a
receiver (see Fig. 3) attempts to determine the
message that was transmitted (i.e., recover the
watermark). The receiver is assumed to have its
own copy of the spreading sequence c[n] and to
be synchronized with the transmitter. The recei-
ver uses a correlation detector, which computes
r
i
=

EaN
_
N1
n=0
r[n Ni ]c[n] for each i. From
the properties of c[n], we nd that
r
i
= Eb
i
+

EaN
_
N1
n=0
v[n] c[n]. If r
i
r0, the
receiver decides

b
i
= + 1; otherwise, the receiver
decides

b
i
= 1.
One measure of performance is the signal-to-
noise ratio (SNR), which in this case is
SNR
std
=Eas
2
v
. Another measure is the prob-
ability of error (P
E
), which is the probability that

b
i
is incorrectly received (

b
i
= b
i
). For this
scenario, P
E,std
=Q

Eas
2
v
p
, where
Q(x) =
1
2p

o
x
e
y
2
a2
dy.
4. BENEFITS OF SPREAD SPECTRUM
For AWGN with unlimited power, SS performs
no better than other modulation schemes. However,
when the AWGN power s
2
v
aN is limited, SS has
several advantages, discussed below.
Imperceptibility. Note that |s[n]|=

EaN
_
for all
n. By choosing N suciently large,

EaN
_
can be
made as small as desired, but the total power
over N samples remains E. The watermark can
thus be transmitted (embedded) with a large total
power E via many low-amplitude changes.
It can be shown that the power spectrum of
s[n] is F
ss
(e
jw
) = E, which means that s[n]
behaves like white noise. There is no peak in the
spectral domain to indicate to an unauthorized
observer that transmission (embedding) has
taken place. These abilities allow a watermark to
be imperceptible{.
Security. Without the spreading sequence c[n],
it is impossible to recover the embedded message
m[n]. Because s[n] behaves like white noise and
has low amplitude, an attacker will have great
diculty estimating c[n] from the marked docu-
ment. Even if the attacker can estimate a portion
of c[n], its pseudo-noise properties make it di-
cult to determine the entire spreading sequence
c[n]. Therefore, the watermark is secure.
Robustness. An attacker does not know what
elements of a marked document were altered by
s[n]; nor does he or she know the values of s[n].
Therefore, to jam the watermark, the attacker
must alter every element of the marked docu-
ment. However, the attacker cannot alter the
marked document excessively; otherwise, the
attacked document will no longer be valuable.
Knowledge of c[n] gives a SS receiver a power
advantage against limited-power jamming. This
advantage is called the processing gain, G
p
=N.
With appropriate processing, the receiver has an
eective SNR of SNR
proc
=G
p
SNR
std
, or an
eective P
E
of P
E,proc
=Q(G
p

Eas
2
v
p
). For su-
ciently large values of N, the watermark is
robust{ against attacks. Additional robustness
can be achieved by using error control coding
(ECC) rather than directly modulating the orig-
inal message b
0
b
1
b
2
.
Multiple Watermarks. It is possible to extend
the example to consider multiple messages m
k
[n]
and pseudo-noise sequences c
k
[n]. The sequences
can be designed to be mutually orthogonal, i.e.,

N1
n=0
c
k
[n] c

[n] = 0, for k6. The orthogonal-

ity property allows each message m
k
[n] to be
embedded and recovered independently of the
others. For watermarking, it means that multiple
watermarks can be employed.
4.1. Spread-spectrum watermarking issues
The SNR and P
E
of a SS system measure its
robustness. For xed s
2
v
, the SNR and P
E
improve
as the embedding power E and chip rate N are
increased. However, if

EaN
_
becomes too large, it
becomes less likely that the watermark will remain
imperceptible. If c[n] is poorly chosen, an attacker
may even be able to reconstruct c[n]. Also, as N
increases, the number of message bits that can be
embedded decreases. A watermarking algorithm
must thus balance robustness, imperceptibility, and
security against the desired message length.
In the example, the receiver was assumed to be
synchronized with the transmitter. Because of the
autocorrelation property (Equation (4)), if the recei-
ver and transmitter are not synchronized, the recei-
ver will not be able to recover the message m[n]. A
sliding correlation detector can be used to regain
synchronization by computing the correlation
between r'[n] = r[n n
0
] and c[n Dn] for various
values of Dn. When Dn6n
0
, only small values will
result; when Dn = n
0
, a large value will occur, and
synchronization is re-acquired. The sliding correla-
tor can be modied to operate in a blockwise or
similar fashion. In this way, attacks that rearrange
{ In SS literature, this property is known as `low prob-
ability of intercept' (LPI).
{ This is the `antijamming' property of SS.
J. K. Su et al. 690
or interchange small parts of a document can be
resisted.
5. WATERMARKING EXAMPLES
This section presents examples of watermarking
methods for text, images, and video. These media
dier in ways that present unique problems for
watermarking, but the principle of watermarking
remains that of embedding a redundant message via
many low-amplitude, pseudo-noise modications of
the original document.
5.1. Text watermarking
Many paper documents (e.g., contracts, wills,
etc.) are more valuable than multimedia like sound
clips and images. Digital libraries and archives dis-
tribute copyrighted articles, journals, and books in
electronic form. Watermarking of text documents
provides a means of tracing documents that have
been illegally copied, distributed, altered, or forged.
Raw text, such as an ASCII text le or computer
source code, cannot be watermarked because there
is no `perceptual headroom' in which to embed hid-
den information. However, nal versions of docu-
ments are typically formatted (e.g., PostScript,
PDF, RTF), and it is possible to hide a watermark
in the layout information (e.g., word and line spa-
cings) and formatting (e.g., serifs). Although optical
character recognition (OCR) can theoretically
remove any layout information, OCR is expensive,
imperfect, and often requires manual supervision.
Brassil et al. [20, 21] have investigated text water-
marking and proposed a variety of methods for
embedding hidden messages in PostScript docu-
ments. The work of Brassil et al. currently does not
use SS embedding, but it could be added to the sys-
tem to strengthen robustness and security.
In [20, 22, 21], the message is embedded by alter-
ing dierent parts of the document. Line shifting
moves entire lines of text up or down by a small
amount, typically 1/150 or 1/300 inch (0.170 or
0.085 mm). Similarly, word shifting may horizon-
tally shift individual words or blocks of words;
words at the ends of a line are not shifted to pre-
serve justication. Figure 4 provides an example of
word shifting. Finally, feature coding modies small
parts of characters themselves.
Recovery of the message from a printed or
photocopied document requires a number of post-
processing steps (scanning, skew correction, and
noise removal). After post-processing, the message
receiver automatically measures line shifts, word
shifts, and/or feature alterations to detect the mess-
age.
In experiments, these methods have shown prom-
ise. Line shifts could be correctly detected even
after photocopying ten times. Word shifts on a
single page were correctly detected 75% of the time,
after photocopying four times or after fax trans-
mission. With simple ECC, 2630 of 30 embedded
message bits per page could be decoded, depending
upon the amount of degradation (e.g., photocopy-
ing multiple times).
5.2. Image watermarking
Digital images can be produced from many
sources, such as everyday photographs, satellite pic-
tures, medical scans, or computer graphics.
Watermarks for natural images typically modify
pixel intensities or transform coecients, although
it is conceivable that a watermark could alter other
features such as edges or textures.
An image may be viewed for an extended
period of time, and it may also be subject to a
great deal of manipulation, such as ltering, crop-
ping, geometric transformations, compression, and
compositing with other images, and hostile
attacks. Thus, imperceptibility, robustness, and
security are usually the most important properties
of image watermarks; speed and complexity are
often secondary. Also, since many images are
compressed (e.g., JPEG or GIF), watermarking
algorithms that operate in the transform or wave-
let domain may be useful.
One potential diculty in image watermarking is
the nite bandwidth available. As the image size
decreases, the permissible message length decreases
unless E is increased (weakening imperceptibility) or
N is decreased (weakening robustness).
The example watermarking system in Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3 has been directly developed into a system
that embeds a spatial-domain DSSS image water-
mark. Figure 5 compares an original, unmarked
image with its watermarked counterpart. The two
images are indistinguishable perceptually. The orig-
inal image is a 256 256 8-bit grayscale image. The
watermark was embedded a chip rate of N = 4096
and per-pixel amplitude

EaN
_
=2. Hence, the total
power per message bit was E = 16384.
Fig. 4. Example of wood shifting. The shift is exaggerated for the sake of example. Normal text line
(top); word-shifted line (middle); overlaid lines to emphasize shift (bottom)
Digital watermarking in documents 691
The marked image was then subjected to a num-
ber of dierent attacks. Example marked images
after attack appear in Fig. 6. The watermark mess-
age remained recoverable after addition of
Gaussian noise with variance 400, a sinusoidal pat-
tern with amplitude 30, and a constant oset of 30.
The watermark also survived JPEG compression
with a quality factor of 20% (compressed to 4959
bytes, or 13:1 compression).
A free software program called StirMark [19, 23]
is available for testing watermark robustness.
StirMark simulates printing and rescanning of an
image, and its producers claim that it can defeat
several commercial watermarking systems. The SS
watermark, however, survived StirMark and the
embedded message was recovered without any bit
errors.
5.3. Video watermarking
Digital video is a sequence of still images, and
many image watermarking techniques can be
extended to video in a straightforward manner. In
Fig. 5. Example of DSSS image watermarking. Original image (left) and watermarked image (right).
Detail of the images appear below the full-size images
Fig. 6. Examples of attacks on DSSS image watermarking. Additive noise (left); JPEG compression
(13.2:1 compression) (right). The watermark was recovered in both cases
J. K. Su et al. 692
contrast to single images, the large video bandwidth
means that long messages can be embedded in
video. Speed is also an important issue because of
the huge amounts of data that must be processed.
Except for video production (which takes place
before distribution), digital video is typically stored
and distributed in compressed form (e.g., MPEG).
Hence, it is often desired that the marked, com-
pressed video should not require more bandwidth
than the unmarked, compressed video. This bit-rate
constraint could also be an issue for single images.
Compressed-domain video watermarking is es-
pecially attractive. Operating on the compressed bit-
stream obviates the need for compute-intensive,
time-consuming decompression and re-compression,
such that the watermark can be embedded at the
time of distribution or reception.
An example of a compressed-domain video
watermarking system is briey described here; a
more thorough treatment appears in [24, 25]. This
system operates on video compressed using the
MPEG-2 compression standard [26].
MPEG-2 uses block motion compensation (BMC)
to indicate movement and block discrete cosine
transform (DCT) compression to describe the re-
sidual error after BMC. This is known as a hybrid
video compression system. In BMC, decompressed
image blocks available to both the encoder and
decoder are translated to new positions to form an
approximation of the current video frame being
transmitted. The dierence between the original cur-
rent frame and the approximation formed via BMC
is the residual error. In block DCT compression,
the residual error image is divided into 8 8 blocks.
Each block is transformed, and the DCT coe-
cients are quantized. Typically, most of the quan-
tized DCT coecients are zero, so only non-zero
quantized DCT coecients must be transmitted.
The example watermarking system operates on
the MPEG-2 bitstream as shown in Fig. 7. The sys-
tem does not alter the motion vectors or any side
information contained in the bitstream. The system
embeds a spatial-domain DSSS watermark in each
video frame and must decode only the block-DCT
portion of the bitstream. The system computes the
DCT of each 88 block of the spatial-domain
watermark and adds it to the corresponding
decoded block DCT. To preserve compression e-
ciency, the watermark is only added to the non-zero
coecients in the decoded block DCT. Because
MPEG-2 includes predictive compression, water-
marks that were embedded in preceding frames
could propagate into the current frame and create
visible distortion. The drift compensation signal
accounts for these previously embedded watermarks
and removes them from the current frame.
Finally, if a bit-rate constraint is desired, an ad-
ditional step is required. Let n
0
denote the number
of bits for the compressed, unmarked DCT coe-
cient and n
1
denote the number of bits for the com-
pressed, watermarked DCT coecient. If n
1
n
0
, the
watermarked coecient replaces the unmarked
coecient in the bitstream. If n
1
>n
0
, however, the
unmarked coecient is left unchanged.
Thus, only non-zero DCT coecients are altered,
and some of these changes may be negated due to
the bit-rate constraint. Figure 8 shows example
frames. Only a small portion of the watermark is
actually embedded; sometimes as much as 90% of
the watermark may be discarded. However, the
chip rate N can be made very large to ensure that it
is possible to recover the watermark that was actu-
ally embedded. For video of reasonable duration, a
watermark data rate of a few bytes per second is
suciently high. The system presented here has low
complexity compared to MPEG-2 compression.
6. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a basic introduction to digital
watermarking of text, image, and video documents.
Watermarking embeds ownership information
directly into the document, and it is proposed as a
``last line of defense'' against unauthorized distri-
Fig. 7. Compressed-domain MPEG-2 video watermarking system. EC = entropy coding,
Q = quantization; a superscript 1 indicates the inverse operation
Digital watermarking in documents 693
bution of digital media. Desirable properties of
watermarks include imperceptibility, robustness,
and security. From a communications viewpoint,
most watermarking systems are similar to spread-
spectrum communications. Spread spectrum water-
marking uses a redundant message that is trans-
mitted via many low-amplitude, noise-like
modications to a document. A number of
examples showed how watermarking has been im-
plemented for text, image, and video watermarking.
Each type of document presents unique problems
for embedding and recovery. The success of these
methods encourages the development of more soph-
isticated watermarking algorithms as part of a lar-
ger system for protecting valuable digital
documents.
REFERENCES
1. van Schyndel, R. G., Tirkel, A. Z. and Osborne, C.
F., A digital watermark. Proceedings of the 1994
IEEE International Conference on Image Processing,
1994, 2, 8689.
2. Cox, I. J., Kilian, J., Leighton, T. and Shamoon, T.,
Secure spread spectrum watermarking for images,
audio, and video. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing, 1996, 3,
243256.
3. Craver, S., Memon, N., Yeo, B.-L. and Yeung, M.
M., On the invertibility of invisible watermarking
techniques. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing, 1997, 1,
540543.
4. Zeng, W. and Liu, B., On resolving rightful owner-
ships of digital images by invisible watermarks.
Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference
on Image Processing, 1997, 1, 552555.
5. Wolfgang, R. B. and Delp, E. J., A watermarking
technique for digital imagery: Further studies.
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Imaging Science, Systems, and Technology. 1997, Las
Vegas, pp. 279-287.
6. Qiao, L. and Nahrstedt, K., Watermarking schemes
and protocols for protecting rightful ownership and
customer's right. Submitted to Academic Press
Journal of Visual Communication and Image
Representation, 1998.
7. Smith, J. R. and Comiskey, B. O., Modulation and
information hiding in images. Proceedings of the First
Information Hiding Workshop, Cambridge, U.K., May
1996.
8. O

Ruanaidh, J. J. K., Dowling, W. J. and Boland, F.

M., Watermarking digital images for copyright pro-
tection. IEE Proceedings on Vision and Image Signal
Processing, 1996, 143, 250256.
9. Herna ndez, J. R., Pe rez-Gonza lez, F. and Rodr guez,
J. M., The impact of channel coding on the perform-
ance of spatial watermarking for copyright protection.
Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1998.
10. Stone, H. S., Analysis of attacks on image water-
marks with randomized coecients. NEC Technical
Report, May 1996.
11. Boneh, D. and Shaw, J., Collusion secure ngerprint-
ing for digital data. Proceedings of Crypto `95, 1995,
Springer LNCS 963, pp. 452-465.
12. O

Ruanaidh, J. J. K. and Pun, T., Rotation, scale,

and translation invariant digital image watermarking.
Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference
on Image Processing, 1997, 1, 536539.
Fig. 8. Comparison of uncompressed video watermarking and compressed-domain video watermarking.
Frames on the left show the watermarked frame and the noise-like watermark (in the spatial domain)
with all watermarked DCT coecients. Frames on the right show the same frames after compression
with MPEG-2 and compressed-domain watermarking
J. K. Su et al. 694
13. Xia, X.-G., Boncelet, C. G. and Arce, G. R., A multi-
resolution watermark for digital images. Proceedings
of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Image
Processing, 1997, 1, 548551.
14. Swanson, M. D., Zhu, B., Chau, B. and Tewk, A.
H., Multiresolution video watermarking using percep-
tual models and scene segmentation. Proceedings of
the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Image
Processing, 1997, 2, 558561.
15. Piva, A., Barni, M., Bartolini, F. and Cappellini, V.,
DCT-based watermark recovering without resorting
to the uncorrupted original image. Proceedings of the
1997 IEEE International Conference on Image
Processing, 1997, 1, 520523.
16. Pickholtz, R. L., Schilling, D. L. and Milstein, L. B.,
Theory of spread-spectrum communicationsa tutor-
ial. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 1982,
COM-30, 855884.
17. Flikkema, P. G., Spread-spectrum techniques for
wireless communications. IEEE Signal Processing
Magazine, 1997, 14, 2636.
18. Hartung, F. and Girod, B., Digital Watermarking of
Raw and Compressed Video. Proceedings of the
European EOS/SPIE Symposium on Advanced Imaging
and Network Technologies. Berlin, Germany, Oct.
1996.
19. Petitcolas, F. A. P., Anderson, R. J. and Kuhn, M.
G., Attacks on copyright marking systems.
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Information
Hiding. Portland, Oregon, USA, Apr. 1998.
20. Brassil, J., Low, S., Maxemchuk, N. and O'Gorman,
L., Electronic marking and identication techniques
to discourage document copying. Proceedings of IEEE
INFOCOM, `94, 1994, 3, 12781287.
21. Brassil, J., Low, S., Maxemchuk, N. and O'Gorman,
L. Hiding information in document images.
Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on
Information Sciences and Systems, 1995, pp. 482-489.
22. Low, S., Maxemchuk, N., Brassil, J. and O'Gorman,
L., Document marking and identication using both
line and word shifting. Proceedings of IEEE
INFOCOM `95, 1995.
23. Petitcolas, F. A. P., StirMark, vers. 1.0. URL http://
www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/watermarking/image_water-
marking/stirmark, 1998.
24. Hartung, F. and Girod, B., Digital watermarking of
MPEG-2 coded video in the bitstream domain.
Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International
Conference on Acoustics. Speech, and Signal
Processing, 1997, 4, 26212624.
25. Hartung, F. and Girod, B., Watermarking of uncom-
pressed and compressed video. Signal Processing,
1998, 66, 283301.
26. ISO/IEC 13818-2, Generic Coding of Moving Pictures
and Associated Audio, Recommendation H.262
(MPEG-2), International Standard, 1995.
Digital watermarking in documents 695