Digital Watermarking

2002/10/24
Room 418, NTU Library Building

Lecturer: Chun-Hsiang Huang

Communication and Multimedia Lab.
Department of CSIE, NTU
 Outline (I)
 Introduction to digital watermarking
– History and interesting facts
– Definitions, models, and importance
– Applications of digital watermarking
– Properties of digital watermarking
 Outline (II)
 Important image watermarking techniques
– LSB watermarking
– Spread-spectrum watermarking
– DCT-based image watermarking
– Watermarking techniques for different purposes
 Visible watermarking
 Fragile watermarking
 Discussions and future work
Introduction to Digital
Watermarking
 What is a watermark?
 Watermarking is an important mechanism applied to
physical objects like bills, papers, garment labels,
product packing…
 Physical objects can be watermarked using special
dyes and inks or during paper manufacturing.
Characteristics of watermarks
 The watermark is hidden from view during
normal use, only become visible by adopting
a special viewing process.
– E.g. hold the bill up to light
 The watermark carries information about the
object in which it is hidden.
– E.g. the authenticity of the bill
– E.g. the trademark of the paper manufacturer
 History of watermarking (I)
 The term “watermark” was probably
originated from the German term
“wassermarke”. Since watermark is of no
importance in the creation of the mark, the
name is probably given because the marks
resemble the effects of water on paper.
 Papers are invented in China over a
thousand years ago. However, the first paper
watermark did not appear until 1282, in Italy.
 History of watermarking (II)
 By the 18th century, watermarks on
paper in Europe and America had been
used as trademarks, to record the
manufactured date, or to indicate the
size of original sheets.
 Watermarks are commonly used on bills
nowadays to avoid counterfeiting
What is digital watermarking?
 Watermarking can also be applied to digital
signals!

Images Video Audio

 IPR related information technologies

Data hiding

Steganography Watermarking

Imperceptible Visible Imperceptible Visible

data embedding data embedding watermarking watermarking

Non-robust Robust Fragile Robust

data embedding data embedding watermarking watermarking
 Information hiding
 Data hiding
– Containing a large range of problem
beyond that of embedding message in
content
 Making the information imperceptible
– E.g. watermarking
 Keeping the existence of information secret
– E.g. anonymous usage of network
– E.g. hiding portions of database for non-privileged
users
 Steganography
 A term derived from the Greek words
“steganos” and “graphia” (The two words
mean “covered” and “writing”, respectively)
– The art of concealed communication.
– The very existence of a message is kept secret.
– E.g. a story from Herodotus
 Military Messages tatooed on the scalp of a slave
 Watermarking v.s. Steganography

 Watermark messages contain

information related the cover work
 In steganographic systems, the very
existence of the message is kept secret.
– If the message tatooed on the slave is “the
slave belongs to somebody”, then we can
regard it as an example of watermarking
Classification of information hiding systems

  Cover Work Cover Work

Dependent Message Independent
Message
Existence Steganographic Covert
Hidden Watermarking Communication

Existence Non-Steganographic Overt Embedded

Known Watermarking Communication
 Importance of digital watermarking
 The sudden increase in watermarking interest is most
likely due to the increase in concern over copyright
protection of content
 copyright-protected digital contents are easily recorded
and distributed due to:

prevalence of high-capacity the explosive growth in

digital recording devices using Internet
 Watermarking v.s. cryptography

 Cryptography is the most common method

of protecting digital content and is one of
the best developed science.
 However, encryption cannot help the seller
monitor how a legitimate customer handles
the content after decryption.
 Digital watermarking can protect content
even after it is decrypted.

Encryption ? Decryption

Under Protection
Definitions about digital watermarking
 Digital watermarking:
– The practice of imperceptually alternating a
Work to embed a message about the Work.
– Related terms
 Work: a specific copy of some electronic signal,
such as a song, a video sequence, or a picture
 Cover Work: the original un-watermarked work,
since it covers (hides) the watermark
 Watermark: the messages being embedded,
indicating some information about the work
 A digital watermarking system
Cover Work

Watermark Watermark Detected

Embedder Detector Watermark
Watermarked
Message
Work

Watermark
Message Recording, transmissions,
or processing
History of digital watermarking
 The first watermarking example similar to the
digital methods nowadays appeared in 1954.
The Muzak Corporation filed a patent for
“watermarking” musical Work. An
identification Work was inserted in music by
intermittently applying a narrow notch filter
centered at 1KHz.
 About 1995, interest in digital watermarking
began to mushroom.
 The watermarking fever

Annual number of papers published on watermarking

 Difference between watermarking and
other IPR techniques
 Watermarks are imperceptible
 Watermarks are inseparable from
the works in which they are
embedded
 Watermarks undergo the same
transformations as the work
 Applications of digital watermarking

 Owner identification
 Proof of ownership
 Broadcast monitoring
 Transaction tracking
 Content authentication
 Copy control
 Device control
 Owner identification (I)
 Under the U.S. law, although the copyright notice is
not required in every distributed copy to protect the
rights of copyright holders, the award to the copyright
holders whose work is misused will be significantly
limited without a copyright notice found on the
distributed materials.
 Traditional textual copyright notices
– “Copyright date owner”
– “© date owner”
– “Copr. date owner”
 Owner identification (II)
 Disadvantages for textual copyright notices
– Easily removed from a document when it is copied
 E.g. the Lena Sjooblom picture (see the next slide)

– Copyright notices printed on the physical medium are not

copied along with the digital content
 E.g. the Music CD
– Occupying a portion of the image and aesthetically reducing
the value of artworks
 Since watermarks are imperceptible and inseparable
from the work, they are obviously superior to textual
copyright notices.
 The Lena Phenomenon
 Lena is the most common test image in image processing research!
 However, the copyright notice of this picture was cropped and
ignored.
 Proof of ownership
 Textual copyright notices cannot be
used to solve the copyright dispute
since they can be easily forged
 Registering every work to a central
repository is too costly!
– http://www.loc.gov/copyright
– $30 per document
 Watermarking can be of use!
 Broadcast monitoring (I)
 TV or radio advertisements
should be monitored to prevent
airtime overbooking!
– In 1997, a scandal broke out
in Japan. Advertisers are
paying for thousands of
commercials that were never
aired!
 Broadcast monitoring
– By human watchers
– Passive monitoring
– Active monitoring
 Broadcast monitoring (II)
 Passive monitoring
– Use computers to monitor received signal
and compares with a database of known
contents
– Disadvantages
 Comparing is not trivial
 Signal degraded due to broadcasting
 Management and maintenance of the
database is quite expensive
 Broadcast monitoring (III)
 Active monitoring
– Simpler to implement
– Identification information can be directly decoded
reliably
– E.g.
 close captions on VBI or file headers
– Watermarking is an obvious alternative method of
hiding identification information
 Existing within the content
 Completely compatible with the equipments
 Transaction tracking
 Watermarks recording the
recipient in each legal sale
or distribution of the work.
 If the work is misused
(leaked to the press or
illegally distributed), the
owner could find out who
is the traitor.
 Visible watermarking is
often adopted in this
application, but Invisible
watermark is even better
The defunct DiVX DVD Player
 The DIVX Corporation sold a enhanced
DVD player that implements a pay-per-
view model.
 Each player will place a unique
watermark in the video disk it played.
 Once the video disk is recorded and
sold, the adversary can be tracked!
 Copy control (I)
 Encryption is the first and strongest line of
defense against illegal copy
– Overcome an encryption mechanism
 Decrypt a copy without a valid key
– Theoretically infeasible for a well designed system
 Obtain a valid key
– Reverse-engineering hardware or software
– E.g. the DeCSS program against the CSS protecting DVD
 Legally obtain a key and pirate the decrypted content
– The central weakness of cryptographic protection!
– The content must be decrypted before it is used, but all
protection is lost once decrypted!
 Copy control (II)
 Watermarking in copy control
– Combining every content recorder with a
watermark detector
– When a copy-prohibit watermark is
detected, the recording device will refuse to
copy
– The system has been envisioned by
CPTWG and SDMI to protect DVD and
audio
 Copy control (III)
 Problems of adopting watermarking
module in recording devices
– Increasing cost
– Reducing the value of devices
 Solution
– Include the requirement for a watermark
detector in the patent license of CSS
instead of enforcing by law
 Keep honest people honest
Playback control Copy control
by encryption by watermarking

Legal, encrypted copy

Compliant player
Compliant recorder

Compliant recorder
Non-Compliant player
Illegal, decrypted copy
 Device control
 Copy control belongs to a broader
category - device control
 Other applications of device control
– Automatically turning on/off functions
related to special contents
 E.g Including watermark to skip advertisements
– Action toys interactive with the TV program
– Digimarc’s MediaBridge
Properties of digital watermarking
 Correct detection result
– Embedding effectiveness
– False-alarm rate
 Fidelity (perceptual similarity)
 Resisting distortions
– Robustness
– Security
 Data payload (capacity)
 Blind/informed watermarking
 Cost
 Effectiveness
 Effectiveness of a watermarking system
– The probability of detection after embedding
– A 100% effectiveness is desirable, but it is
often not the case due to other conflict
requirements, such as perceptual similarity
 E.g. watermarking system for a stock photo
house
 False-alarm rate
 Detection of watermark in a work that do not
actually contain one
– The number of false positives occur in a given
number of runs of watermark detector
 The false alarm rate of the watermarking
system used in DVD recorder should be lower
than 1/1012
– E.g. a false alarm occurred in a world-series
baseball game
Fidelity (perceptual similarity)
 The fidelity of the watermarking system
– The perceptual similarity between the
original and the watermarked version of the
cover work
– It is the similarity at the point at which the
watermarked content is provided to the
customer that counts
 E.g. NTSC video or AM radio has different
perceptual similarity requirements from the
HDTV or DVD video and audio
Problems to determine the fidelity
 Commonly Nused image similarity index
1
– MSE:
N
 (
i 1
c[i ]  c ' [i ]) 2

– SNR:  (
i 1
c[i ]  c ' [i ]) 2

 c[i ] i 1
2

 Finding a quality index completely

reflecting the characteristics of the
human perceptual model is difficult
 Robustness (I)
 The ability to detect the watermark after
common signal processing operations
– Common images distortions
 spatial filtering, lossy compression,

printing/scanning, geometric distortions

– Common video distortions
 Changes in frame rate, recording to tape…

– Common audio distortions

 temporal filtering, recording on audio tape…
 Robustness (II)
 Not all watermarking applications
require robustness to all possible signal
processing operations.
 There is a special class of
watermarking techniques where
robustness is undesirable
– The fragile watermarking
 Security
 The ability to resist hostile attacks
– Unauthorized removal
 Eliminating attacks
 Masking attacks
 Collusion attacks
– Unauthorized embedding
 Embed forgery watermarks into works that should not
contain watermarks
 E.g. fragile watermarks for Authentication
– Unauthorized detection
 Data capacity
 The number of bits a watermarking
scheme encodes within a unit of time or
within a work.
 Different applications require different
data capacities, e.g.
– 4-8 bits for a 5-minutes video of copy
control
– Longer messages for broadcast monitoring
 Blind/informed detection
 Informed watermarking schemes
– The detector requires access to the un-
watermarked original
 E.g. transaction tracking,
 Blind watermarking schemes
– Detectors do not require any information
related to the original
 E.g.DVD copy control module
 E.g. An automatic image IPR checking robot
 Multiple watermarks
 In certain cases, more than one
watermarks are needed.
– E.g. American copyright grants the right of
TV viewers to make a single copy of
broadcast programs for time-shift watch.
But further copies is not allowed .
 Adding two watermarks instead of alternating
the original watermark to avoid the risk caused
by easily changing watermarks
 Cost
 The costs in deploying watermark
embedders and detectors depends on
the scenario and the business model.
– Real-time constraint
 Broadcast monitoring v.s. proof of copyright

– Embedder/detector constraint
 Copy protection v.s. transaction tracking (DIV-X)
Watermarking techniques in current standards

 The CPTWG (Copy Protection Technical Working

Group) tested watermarking systems for protection of
video on DVD disks.
 The SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) made
watermarking a core component in their system for
music protection.
 Two projects sponsored by the European Union, VIVA
and Talisman, tested watermarking for broadcast
monitoring.
 The ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
took an interest in the context of designing advanced
MPEG standards. (MPEG-21)
 Companies with watermarking products

 Digimarc bundled its watermarking

system with Adobe’s Photoshop
 Technology from the Verance
Corporation was adopted into the first
phase of SDMI and used by some
Internet music distributors
 Watermarking for different media types

 Text watermarking
 Audio watermarking
 Image watermarking
– LSB based scheme
– Spread spectrum scheme
– DCT-based scheme
 Video watermarking
 3D-mesh watermarking
 Watermarking for text

 Line-Shift Coding
 Word-Shift Coding
 Feature coding
 Watermarking for images & videos

spatial domain
 Watermarking in
transform domain
raw data
 Watermarking in
compressed data

random number
 Watermarking with
visually recognizable pattern
An generic image watermarking
system
Distortions
•Image processing
Embedding •Compression
•…...

Watermark Comparison

 Requirements
– Invisibility
Watermark Extraction
– Robustness
– No ambiguity
 LSB Flipping Method
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
55 73 71 123 123 205
Bit 1 0 71 0
120 123 70 72 147 199
Bit 0 1 121 1
130 123 67 68 73 123
Watermark 1 Bit 1 Bit 2 2 123 68 2
140 133 120 72 70 117
Watermark 2 Bit 3 3 70 3
158 142 123 123 69 71
Bit 0 Bit 2 Bit 3 4 159 122 70 4
195 178 150 112 67 70
5 5

 Generate the random walk sequence for each watermark (e.g.. 00112)
 Force the LSB to match the watermark bit

 This works will not survive any modification

 Spread Spectrum Method

the watermark W = w1,...,wn

each wi is chosen according to zero-mean Gaussian Distribution
the image X is transform by full-frame DCT
n highest magnitude coefficients (except DC) are chosen: y1,...,yn
Embedding: y’i = yi + wi
Extracting: wi = (yi* - yi) / 
similarity = correlation (W,W *)
 Spread Spectrum Method (cont.)
Original Received
Original
Image
Image Image

FFT/DCT FFT/DCT

Determine Perceptually
Significant Regions －
Watermark Original Extracted
Watermark Watermark

Inverse FFT/DCT

Similar
Watermarked
Image
 Spread Spectrum Method (cont.)
 Watermark detector

Watermark detector response to 1000 randomly generated watermarks

 Watermarking for Audio
 Phase Coding
– Inserting the watermark by modifying the phase of each
frequency component
 Spread Spectrum Method
– The watermark code is spread over the available frequency
band, and then attenuated and added as additive random
noise
 Perceptual Method
– The watermark is generated by filtering a PN-sequence with
a filter that approximates the frequency masking
characteristics of HAS
– Weighting the watermark in the time domain to account for
temporal masking
 Watermarking for Audio
(cont.)
 Watermark generator
Frequency
Masking
Audio Hanning Information Quantization w+
Signal FFT original
Window
Scale signal
Factor

w
PN M(w)
sequence × × +

Extract
Envelop
 Watermarking for Audio
(cont.)
 Watermark detection
 Watermarking for Polygonal
Models

 3D models watermarking
– vertex coordinates
– vertex topology (connectivity)

Embedded pattern Simplified polygonal

 A DCT-based Image
Watermarking System
 Reference
– C.T.Hsu and J. L. Wu, “Hidden digital watermarks in
images,” IEEE Trans. On Image Processing, vol 8., No.1,
January 1999
– C. H. Huang and J. L. Wu, “A Blind Watermarking Algorithm
with Semantic Meaningful Watermarks,” 34th Asilomar
Conference on Signals. Systems, and Computers, Pacific
Grove, October, 2000.
– D. Y. Chen, M. Ouhyoung, and J. L. Wu, "A Shift-Resisting
Public Watermark System for Protecting Image Processing
Software", IEEE Trans. on Comsumer Electronics, Vol. 46,
No. 3, pp. 404-414, Aug. 2000.
 Advantages of this scheme
 Advantages:
– Semantically meaningful watermark pattern
– Good perceptual invisibility
– Acceptable robustness
– Various user-selected options
– Reasonable complexity/execution time
 System overview
 Watermarks are randomly permuted to
spread their spatial relationship, and
then embedded in the DCT domain of
the host image, with consideration of
invisibility/robustness
Block Diagrams of the Original
Algorithm
Original Image Suspected Image
Original Image Watermark Image

FDCT FDCT
FDCT Pseudo-random
Permutation

Extract the
Permutated
Block-based
Data (XOR)
Mapping
Embedding
(Polarity
Reversing)

Reverse Block-
based
Permutation
IDCT

Watermarked Image Reverse Pseudo-

random Extracted
Permutation Watermark
 Block DCT/IDCT
 Advantages
– Fast
– Suitable for robustness against JPEG
compression
 Disadvantages
– Block effect
– Effect of picture cropping
 Semantic Meaningful
Watermarks
 Watermarks can be verified with naked eyes
by understanding the semantics of the
extracted watermark patterns

The seal of CML (in Chinese characters)

Pseudo-Random Permutation
 A n-bit Linear Feedback Shift Register
(LFSR) is used to generate the maximal
length (2n-1) sequence
Original
+
Watermark

Permuted
The 14-bit Shift Register that Watermark
permutes 1-16384
 Block-based Mapping
 Watermark blocks with more signal pixels are
embedded into image blocks with higher
variances
– to achieve better perceptual invisibility.
 Polarity Reversing
 Polarity: the inequality relationship between DC &
corresponding AC values within each DCT block.

watermark bits: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
polarity: 1100101
XOR
reversed polarity: 1001100

Embedding Extraction
 Embedding(1/2)
 Choices of embedding
positions within each block: Embedding 4 watermark pixels

– Low-frequency 0 1 5 6 14 15 27 28
2 4 7 13 16 26 29 42
 Bad invisibility 3 8 12 17 25 30 41 43
9 11 18 24 31 40 44 53
– High-frequency 10 19 23 32 39 45 52 54
20 22 33 38 46 51 55 60
 Bad robustness 21
35
34
36
37
48
47
49
50
57
56
58
59
62
61
63

=> Middle-frequency
 Fix positions in each block
 Embedding(2/2)
 Polarity:the inequality relations between the scaled
DC value and the selected AC coefficients

  AC (i, j )   DC 
1, if  * Q (i , j )   ScaleFactor * Q(0,0)  * Q(0,0)
P(i, j )    Q(i, j )   
0, otherwise


 Effects of the JPEG quantization table are also

considered
 Extraction
 Exclusive-or (XOR) operations are
performed on the two polarity patterns
to obtain the permuted binary data.
 Indispensability of Original
Images for Watermark
Extraction
 Reasons
– The relative ordering of block variance
values is changed after embedding.
– The watermark extraction needs both
polarity information from the original and
the embedded images.
 VideoVR System
 A panoramic image construction tool
developed by CML
 Watermarking for VideoVR

 Each output
panorama picture
has been embedded Extraction
with an invisible
watermark.
 Difficulty in Applying the
Original Algorithms
Original Image Suspected Image

FDCT FDCT

 Only panorama Extract the

Permutated

pictures embedded
Data (XOR)

with watermarks are Reverse Block-

available.
based
Permutation

Reverse Pseudo-
random Extracted
Permutation Watermark
 A Blind Version of the
Watermarking Algorithm
Original Image Watermark Image Suspected Image

FDCT Pseudo-random FDCT

Permutation

Readout the
Embedding
Permutated Data
Parameter Adjusting
(XOR)
Embedding
(Watermark
Labeling)

Reverse Pseudo-
random Extracted
IDCT Permutation Watermark

Watermarked Image
 Watermark Labeling
 Corresponding polarities are set
according to the watermark sequence.

watermark bits: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
polarity: 1100101
reversed polarity: 0101001 Read Out

Embedding Extraction
 Removing Block-Based
Permutation
 Removing the block-based permutation
to eliminate the need of original images
– The image quality loss is compensated by
carefully adjusting watermarking
parameters
– The experimental results show that no
perceptible quality loss was found
Experimental Results(1/2)

A panorama picture before embedding watermark

A panorama picture after embedding watermark

 Experimental Results (2/2)

The watermark extracted from the watermarked picture

The watermark extracted from the picture without watermarking

System Demonstration
 Introduction to visible
watermarking schemes
 G. Braudaway, K.A. Magerlein, and F. Mintzer,
"Protecting Publicly Available Images with a Visible
Image Watermark," IS&T/SPIE Symposium on Elect.
Imaging Sci. and Tech., Proceedings of Symposium
on Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence
Techniques, Feb. 1996.
 C. H. Huang and J. L. Wu, “Attacking Visible
Watermarking Schemes,” accepted by IEEE
Transactions on Multimedia
 Visible Watermarking

+ 

 IPR protection mechanisms for images and

videos that have to be released.
 Unobtrusive copyright patterns are
recognizable after embedding.
 Requirements for Visible
Watermarking Schemes

 The perceptibility of copyright patterns

(watermarks)
 The perceptibility of host image details
 Robustness
– Difficult to remove unless exhaustive and
expensive human interventions are involved.
A General Formulation for Visible
Watermarking Embedding

I '  K 1 * I  K 2 *W
D ( E I ( I ' ), E I ( I ))  Threshold I

D( EW ( I ' ), EW (W ))  Threshold W
• For a good visible watermarking scheme, the embedding
parameters are assumed to be unknown.
 An visible watermarking system
~ ( n ,m   ) Yw Yn ,m 2 / 3
Y n ,m  Yn ,m  ( ) L *
 A   38.667 Yw
 Important observations (1/4)
 Attacking visible watermarking scheme
means successfully recover the
watermarked area.
 Implication:
– Similar image processing techniques can
be adopted
 Image recovery
 Object removal
 Important observations(2/4)
 To clearly recognize the copyright
patterns, the contours of embedded
patterns must be preserved.
 Implication:
– An attacking scheme is effective if
1. The pattern is completely removed

2. The shape is seriously distorted without

seriously degrading visual quality.

 Important observations(3/4)
 The perceptibility of the host image
details within watermarked area
depends on the preservation of edge
information.
 Implication:
– Available information while attacking
 Surrounding pixels around watermarked area.

 Edge information within watermarked area is

available while attacking.

 Important observations(4/4)
 The robustness lies in the inevitability
of exhaustive and expensive labors.
 Implication:
– Only minimum user intervention should be
adopted during attacking
 User selection of watermarked areas
 Averaging Attacks

 Refill the watermarked areas by averaging

surrounding pixels.
– Good approximations for small areas.
– Blurring effects across object boundaries
 Image Inpainting
 n N (i , j , n )  n
I (i, j )   L (i, j ) 
t
n
 I (i, j )

 N ( i , j , n ) 
 M. Bertalmio, V. Caselles, and C. Ballester, “Image inpainting,”
SIGGRAPH 2000, Aug. 2000
 Image inpainting
– is an iterative image recovery technique.
– prolongs the approaching isophotes into damaged areas.
– successfully reconstruct the edges of damaged area.
 Inpainting Attacks

 Attacks against visible watermarking are regarded as common

image recovery problems.
 Good results can be obtained for areas composed of thin
copyright patterns, but areas composed of thick patterns cannot
be successfully recovered.
 Generalized Attacks (I)

Mathematical
morphology +

 After the user selects the watermarked areas,

decompose watermarked areas into parts:
– Areas composed of thin patterns
 Recovered by basic inpainting
– Areas composed of thick areas
 Generalized Attacks (II)

 Classifying flat areas

within watermarked
area by analyzing
remaining edge
information of host
images
 Generalized Attacks (III)

 Pixel values of the flat areas connecting the

unwatermarked areas can be appropriately
approximated by propagating that of
surrounding unwatermarked areas.
 Generalized Attacks (IV)
 The remaining areas can only be recovered
by approximated prediction.
 The edge areas are recovered automatically
by preserving the differences of intensity
between edges and their surrounding flat
areas, which may originally be unmarked or
recovered in the previous step
 In order to recover the fully contained flat
areas, the same algorithms applied to
watermarked edge areas are adopted again.
Flowchart of the visible watermark
attacking scheme
Experimental Results (I)
Experimental Results (II)
Experimental Results (III)
 Fragile Watermarks
 Definition
– A watermark likely to be undetectable after a work
is modified in anyway.
– If a watermark is found, we can infer that this work
is probably not altered.
 Applications
– Content authentication against malicious
alternation
 Example
– LSB embedding
 Resource
 Books
– Digital Watermarking, Ingemar Cox, Jeffrey Bloom, Matthew Miller,
Morgan Kauffmann Publishers,2002
– Information hiding techniques for steganography and digital
watermarking, Stefan Katzenbeisser,
Fabien A. P. Petitcolas (Editors), Artech House Books, 1999
 Website
– Digital Watermarking World
– Digital Watermarking Links by Alessandro Piva
– Watermarking and Data Hiding by Frank Hartung
 Papers