Abstract:
Methods and systems for providing photographic rights management and identity protection. The invention is premised on the assumption that the individual that first registers an uploaded image is the rightful owner for the purposes of the uploading host website. Once rightful ownership is established in an uploaded digital image instance, the rightful owner may select the degree of protection they desire to assign over their uploaded image and are given authority over their image.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    The present invention relates generally to methods and systems directed to digital rights management, and more specifically, to a system and method for providing image rights management and identity protection on public networking sites. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    A number of popular online social networking sites have emerged with the expansion of the Internet, and World Wide Web. Representative networking sites include Friendster.com (Friendster, Inc.), TheFacebook (www.thefacebook.com), and Myspace (www.myspace.com) and dating sites such as Match.com and eHarmony.com. Typically, a user wishing to participate in one of these social networking sites begins by creating a personal profile, which can be personalized to express an individual&#39;s interests and tastes, values and ruminations. In certain applications, rich media such as audio and video can also be integrated into a user&#39;s personal profile to make it more personal and appealing. The user typically links their profile to other users to generate a list (i.e., on-line social network) of “friends,” through which they can navigate to view profiles of friends of friends, and so on. Alternately, they might choose to search through a user directory to find users that meet certain criteria. In many cases, users can view all information provided by other users including their photos and profiles, see how the user is connected to other users and send messages. Sites with such functionality can be used for all types of on-line social networking, including, for example, making friends, meeting other couples, or people with kids, etc. 
         [0003]    The dynamics of identity formation and presentation play out visibly on social networking sites. Users can express themselves through text, images and media, making connections with individuals throughout the country and world that would be impossible to make in real life. Because the virtual, on-line world requires people to “write themselves into being,”—with little ability on the part of the network to validate user-provided information—users command heretofore unheard of abilities to craft their identity according to their own desires. As peer-validation is as large a driving force in online socialization as in-person socialization, and users are afforded the ability to craft their identities per their own wishes, the temptation and ability exists for users to present themselves in a manner that will result in the most attention (generally in the form of “friend requests” and page-views); this results in a large number of profiles that are inaccurate and others that are totally fabricated. 
         [0004]    The problem of this misrepresentation is never more fundamental and problematic than on web-based social networking sites, where relationships must be based on a fundamental trust, as there is no guarantee that another user has provided their actual photographs or information. This allows for social deception, where users can easily steal images from other users in order to present themselves as perhaps more attractive or interesting, in order to receive more attention. In most cases, the intent of positioning another user&#39;s photos as one&#39;s own is not to assume their true identify or make false purchases—as with traditional identity theft—but instead present a different user&#39;s likeness as their own. Although such identity theft is not as pernicious or harmful as theft of a credit card or social security number, it nevertheless comprises an enormous breach of mutual trust within the online social community. 
         [0005]    Presently, sites such as MySpace.com have employees that review thousands of images uploaded each day to screen for inappropriate depictions, including pornography. This activity is performed as a response to advertiser concerns over the pairing of their brand images with inappropriate content. This diligence, however useful, unfortunately, does not extend to ensuring that end users are protected against image cloning and identity theft. At best, certain sites post rules stating that no user is allowed to post a picture of someone else on the Internet without written permission, and that if a user is under 18, they need a guardian&#39;s permission to post their picture. Given the extent of the problem, it is apparent that these rules and regulations go largely unheeded. 
         [0006]    The present inventors have recognized a need for a system and method that reduces personal identity theft by protecting the photographs of registered users from being taken and positioned as one&#39;s own by anonymous identity thieves. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0007]    The invention provides new and improved methods and systems for providing photographic rights management and identity protection. The invention anticipates the continued growth of public data sharing in venues such as the World Wide Web, and the continued movement toward the protection of privacy rights by anticipating a need to protect the primacy rights of member&#39;s photographs uploaded to a photo-hosting web site. In this regard, the inventors claim a process, system and associated method that protect digital images made public on internet-based social networking and other sites. The invention is premised on the assumption that the individual that first registers an uploaded image is the rightful owner. Once rightful ownership is established for an uploaded digital image, the rightful owner may select the degree of protection they desire to assign over their uploaded image and are given authority over that image. 
         [0008]    According to one aspect of the invention, the owner of an original personal digital image instance uploads his personal digital image instance to a local photo-sharing host web site. At the local photo-sharing host web site, the image owner may view and maintain control over his uploaded personal digital image instance, as is well known. Presently, an image owner may only limit the viewers that can view the image owner&#39;s uploaded digital images or restrict the ability to save pictures from the website to the viewer&#39;s hard drive. These restrictions can be circumvented by savvy users that could use the “print screen” option to take a snap shot of their screen, and use a photo editor to save a version of the image. 
         [0009]    These and other limitations are overcome by the invention by providing the rightful owner of a digital image with an assurance that no other subsequent individual may use a similar image to the original digital image, without permission or knowledge of the rightful owner. 
         [0010]    According to a further aspect of the invention, means are provided for an image uploader to appeal a usage decision in the case where it is believed that a mistake has occurred in assigning user rights based on order of upload. 
         [0011]    In some embodiments, the invention may be applied retroactively to a database of images, in the case where the host site host cannot utilize the upload order of the images as a means of assigning ownership rights. 
         [0012]    According to yet another aspect of the present invention, there is provided an ability to utilize known pattern-matching and image recognition technology to assign primary control over an uploaded image to the first user that registers the image, and then screen, not by file name, but by the fundamental qualities of the photograph, to ensure that the person that first uploaded the image maintains their desired degree of control over the image. 
     
    
     
       DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES 
         [0013]    These and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from a consideration of the following Detailed Description Of The Invention considered in conjunction with the drawing Figures, in which: 
           [0014]      FIG. 1  illustrates a multiple server system, comprised of various computers or devices running clients, which are coupled to local servers which are in turn coupled to a central server, according to one embodiment; 
           [0015]      FIGS. 2, 2   a,    2   b  and  2   c  together comprise a process for providing photographic rights management and identity protection on public networking sites, according to one embodiment; 
           [0016]      FIG. 3  illustrates a data entry screen (GUI) for entering preference data about uploaded images, according to one embodiment; and 
           [0017]      FIG. 4  illustrates an exemplary rights profile which is created at the data entry screen of  FIG. 3 , according to one embodiment. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0018]    In accordance with the present invention, there are provided herein methods and systems for providing photographic rights management and identity protection that address the need to protect images (e.g., photographs) on public networking sites. Embodiments of the invention are disclosed hereinafter for methods and systems that provide controls for deterring individuals from taking others images and positioning them as their own. 
         [0019]    While particular reference may be made to “images” in the described embodiments, it is understood that the invention contemplates the term “image” to more broadly encompass, for example, picture files including photographs and other images, video files, audio files and the like. It should also be understood that the term “similar,” as used herein in the context of attempting to match images means that image relational software compares two images in order to establish with a large degree of certainty that two images are indeed derived from the same photograph, with allowances for editing, such as cropping, rotation inversion, color edits and differences that might arise from digital scanning of the same physical image. 
       System Overview 
       [0020]    Referring now to  FIG. 1 , one embodiment of a photographic rights management and identity protection system  100  for protecting photographs on public networking sites, will now be described. 
         [0021]      FIG. 1  illustrates a multiple server system  100 , comprised of various computers or devices running clients X, Y and Z, which are coupled to local servers  22 ,  24 , and  26 , which are in turn coupled to a central server  28  operated by a managing entity  228 . Each of the respective local servers are associated with a photo-sharing host site A, B and C, configured to allow clients X, Y and Z to upload and maintain their digital image files. For example, client X uploads digital image file  11  to server  22  of photo-sharing host site A via the wide area network  20 . The wide area network  20  could be the Internet or an intranet or any other such wide area network or even a local area network. In like manner, client Y uploads digital image file  13  to server  24  of photo-sharing host site B via the wide area network  20 . Similarly, client Z uploads digital image file  15  to server  26  of photo-sharing host site C via the wide area network  20 . 
         [0022]    Local photo-sharing host sites A, B and C are pre-designated to cooperate with the central server  28  for the purpose of performing the supervisory and management functions associated with the invention. Data repository  30  is shown coupled to server  28 , which may be remote or co-located with server  28 . Server  28  may access local servers  22 ,  24  and  26  and associated local photo-sharing host sites A, B and C over the wide area network  20 . Although multiple servers  22 ,  24 ,  26  are shown coupled to a central server  28  in the illustrative embodiment, it should be understood that some embodiments may use only a single server to perform all of the supervisory and management functions including uploading all image files. 
       Operation 
       [0023]    With reference now to  FIG. 2 , there is shown a process  200  for providing photographic rights management and identity protection on public networking sites, according to one embodiment. The process  200  is preferably executed by a multiple server system, including a plurality of local servers in data communication with a central server, such as the system illustrated in  FIG. 1 . 
         [0024]    In the following description, it is assumed that in the illustrative example, a client Z uploads a digital image, such as image  15  to local host site C at an earlier point in time. At a later point in time, another client X uploads a digital image  11  to local host site A. Each of the local host sites A and C upload their respective images  11 ,  15 , contained within an associated rights profile  110  and  150 , to the central server  28 . It is further assumed in the illustrative example that as a result of comparing images uploaded from the respective local host sites A, B and C, a determination is made by the managing entity  228  that the images  11  and  15  match. That is, they are determined to be similar, as defined herein. 
         [0025]    At step  202 , an uploading client, such as, for example, client X, uploads his digital image  11  to a local server  22  which is part of a local photo-sharing host site A, configured to enable clients, such as client X, to upload and maintain their digital image files (see  FIG. 1 ). 
         [0026]    At step  204 , the uploading client X confirms the upload of his digital image  11  at the local photo-sharing host site A. 
         [0027]    At step  206 , the uploading client X is presented with a data entry screen, referred to herein as a preference page  300 , described in greater detail below with reference to  FIG. 3 . 
         [0028]    At step  208 , the uploading client X specifies his desired privacy settings for the presently uploaded digital image  11 . 
         [0029]    At step  210 , upon depressing the “save” button  39  at preference page  300  (see  FIG. 3 ), a local record  110  (i.e., referred to herein as a “rights profile,” as shown in  FIG. 4 ) is created and stored locally at server  22  at local photo-sharing host site A. 
         [0030]    At step  212 , a copy of the newly created rights profile  110  is transmitted from the local photo-sharing host site A to the managing entity  228  via network  20 . 
         [0031]    At step  214 , a determination is made at the managing entity  228 , regarding whether digital image  11  included as an element of the presently uploaded rights profile  110  matches at least one other pre-existing digital image stored in database  30 . In other words, at this step, the presently uploaded digital image  11  is compared with all of the pre-existing digital images stored in database  30  to determine whether there exists within that database any similar image(s). It is understood that the pre-existing digital images are those images which are elements of rights profiles, uploaded to the management entity  228  by various clients X, Y, Z at earlier points in time relative to digital image  11 . 
         [0032]    At step  216 , in the case where it is determined at step  214  that the presently uploaded digital image  11  does not match any of the pre-existing digital images in database  30 , a permanent copy of the rights profile  110 , which had been uploaded at step  212 , is saved in database  30  at the managing entity  228 . In general, whenever it is determined that there is no match between a currently uploaded image and an existing image in database  30 , a new rights profile is created, comprised of the uploaded image and other elements as described above and illustrated in  FIG. 4 . The new rights profile  110  is preferably stored in database  30  at the managing entity  228  in a record format. 
         [0033]    At step  218 , the process terminates. 
         [0034]    At step  220 , in the case where it is determined at step  214  that the presently uploaded digital image  11  matches previously uploaded digital image  15 , uploaded from client Z, the managing entity  228  records the match between the respective images for inclusion in the rights profile  110  associated with uploaded digital image  11 . An illustration of this recordation is depicted in  FIG. 4  in section  48 . From this step the process branches to perform steps  222  and  226 , substantially simultaneously. 
         [0035]    At step  222 , the managing entity  228  communicates a “Type-II” data message to local host site C, from which the previously uploaded digital image  15  was received. The “Type-II” data message indicates that a presently uploaded image  11 , identified by managing entity  228 , was determined to match a previously uploaded image  15 , stored within database  30  (see determination step  214 ). 
         [0036]    At step  224 , the local photo-sharing host site C receives the “Type-II” data message issued from the managing entity  228  and responds by updating the local record associated with the previously uploaded digital image  15  from client Z to indicate that another client X has attempted to use a presently uploaded digital image  11 , which has been determined to be similar to previously uploaded digital image  15  owned by client Z. This process, involving the original photo-sharing host site C, utilized by client Z, continues at step  230 . 
         [0037]    At step  226 , which substantially parallels step  222  above, the managing entity  228  communicates a “Type-I” data message to local host site A, from which digital image  11  was uploaded. The Type-I data message communicated from managing entity  228  indicates that, at determination step  214 , managing entity  228  determined that presently uploaded image  11  is similar to previously uploaded image  15 , stored within database  30 . 
         [0038]    At step  228 , the photo-sharing host site A receives the “Type-I” data message communicated from the managing entity  228  and responds by updating the local record associated with the subsequently presently uploaded digital image  11  to indicate to the uploading client X that he has attempted to use a digital image  11 , which has been determined to be similar to a previously uploaded digital image  15  owned by another client Z. This process, involving the uploading photo-sharing host site A, utilized by client X, continues at step  254 . 
         [0039]    At step  230 , a notification is issued by photo-sharing host site C to client Z, informing him that client X has attempted to subsequently upload and use a digital image  11  on local photo-sharing host site A, which has been determined to be similar to their digital image  15 . This notification includes information regarding the identified redundancy, such as a link to view the profile page maintained by client X at local host photo-sharing site A. 
         [0040]    At step  232 , a determination is made by photo-sharing host site C as to the privacy settings requested by client Z for image  15 , which were established at a point in time substantially coincident with the uploading of image  15  at local host photo-sharing site C. 
         [0041]    At step  234 , it is determined that client Z selected the “restricted” privacy settings for image  15  and the process, as it relates to local photo-sharing host site C, terminates. The process continues, pertaining to local photo-sharing host site A, continues at step  252 . 
         [0042]    At step  236 , it is determined that client Z selected the “non-restricted” privacy settings for image  15  and the process, as it relates to local photo-sharing host site C, terminates. The process continues, pertaining to local photo-sharing host site A, continues at step  252 . 
         [0043]    At step  238 , it is determined that client Z selected the “semi-restricted” privacy settings for image  15  and local photo-sharing host C sends a communication to client Z requesting that a decision be made regarding whether or not to allow client X to use presently uploaded image  11 , which was determined to be similar to their previously uploaded image  15 . Recall that at step  230 , client Z was provided with information regarding client X and image  11  to make the usage decision concerning the allowance of denial of image  11 , uploaded from client X. 
         [0044]    At step  240 , client Z decides whether or not to allow usage of image  11  by client X. 
         [0045]    At step  242 , at local photo-sharing host C, the local record associated with image file  15  is updated to reflect the usage decision by client Z. 
         [0046]    At step  244 , at local photo-sharing host C, the decision by client Z is communicated to the managing entity  228 . 
         [0047]    At step  246 , the managing entity  228  receives the communication issued from client Z at the local photo-sharing host site C and updates rights profiles  110  and  150  associated with image files  11  and  15 , respectively, to reflect the decision by client Z. 
         [0048]    At step  248 , managing entity  228  communicates the decision by client Z regarding the use of presently uploaded image  11  to local photo-sharing host A. 
         [0049]    At step  250 , local photo-sharing host A updates the local record associated with image  11 . 
         [0050]    At step  252 , a determination is made as to whether client Z has decided to allow or deny the use of presently uploaded image  11  by client X. It is understood that a decision to allow usage of image  11  might have been made at the time client Z selected “non-restricted” or might have otherwise been made at step  240 . Conversely, it is also understood that a decision to restrict or deny usage of image  11  might have been made when client Z selected the “restricted” option. 
         [0051]    At step  254 , having determined at step  252  that client Z either selected the “non-restricted” privacy setting or chose to allow the usage of image  11  (at step  240 ), client X is notified of the match by local photo-sharing host A. 
         [0052]    At step  256 , the process terminates. 
         [0053]    At step  258 , having determined at step  252  that client Z either selected the “restricted” privacy setting or chose to restrict the usage of image  11  (at step  240 ), the use of image  11  by client X is restricted at local photo-sharing host A. 
         [0054]    At step  260 , local photo-sharing host A notifies client X of the restriction of image  11  and a process for appeal. 
         [0055]    At step  262 , client X chooses whether or not to appeal the usage restriction imposed by the local photo-sharing host site A. 
         [0056]    At step  264 , in the case that client X chooses, at step  262 , not to appeal the usage restriction, the process terminates. 
         [0057]    At step  266 , in the case that client X chooses, at step  262 , to appeal the usage restriction, client X submits a request for arbitration and asserts their desired privacy settings associated with image  11 . 
         [0058]    At step  268 , the photo-sharing host site A receives the appeal request from client X and communicates this request to managing entity  228 . 
         [0059]    At step  270 , local photo-sharing host sites A and C collaborate with managing entity  228  to consider the appeal and make a determination whether to reverse the usage restriction imposed on presently uploaded image  11  from client X. In making this determination, the managing entity  228  may consider any number of relevant factors, including, for example, the original upload date of the original image provided by client Z, the number of “friends” within the networks of each client, the number of page-views per client, the geography of the client and other relevant factors as will assist in making a decision as to rightful ownership of the image. 
         [0060]    At step  272 , the determination is made by managing entity  228  whether the usage restriction on uploaded digital image  11  should be reversed. 
         [0061]    At step  274 , upon determining that the usage restriction on uploaded digital image  11  should not be reversed, the photo-sharing host sites A and C and managing entity  228  update their local records associated with the respective uploaded digital images  11  and  15  to reflect the appeal and rejection of appeal. 
         [0062]    At step  276 , the photo-sharing host sites A and C communicate the decision to clients X and Z, respectively. 
         [0063]    At step  278 , the process terminates 
         [0064]    At step  280 , upon determining that the usage restriction on uploaded digital image  11  should be reversed, the photo-sharing host sites A and C and managing entity  228  update their local records associated with respective uploaded digital images  11  and  15  to reflect the appeal and acceptance of the appeal. 
         [0065]    At step  282 , the respective local photo-sharing host sites A and C communicate the appeal decision to clients  10  and  16 , respectively. 
         [0066]    At step  284 , local photo-sharing host site C restricts the use of image  15  by client Z. 
         [0067]    At step  286 , the process terminates. 
         [0068]      FIG. 3  illustrates, by way of example, a data entry screen  300  (GUI) of the present invention, sometimes referred to herein as a preferences page  300 . The preference page  300  may be presented to the uploading client X upon uploading his digital image  11  to the local photo-sharing host site A. The preference page  300  facilitates the selection of privacy settings. The selected privacy settings are stored in association with the uploaded digital image  11  as a local record on server  22  at the local photo-sharing host site A. The preference page  300  includes a privacy settings selection area  31 , enabling uploading clients, such as client X, to establish privacy rights associated with an uploaded digital image, such as digital image  11 , by selecting a desired level of security. In the presently described embodiment, an uploading client X uploading a digital image  11  has the option to select one of three levels of security protection, including, “restricted”  33 , “semi-restricted”  35  and “not restricted”  37 . Of course, other embodiments may include more or less levels of security protection in accordance with the specific needs of the user community. 
         [0069]    The three levels of security protection that may be selected by an uploading client X at preference page  300  are now described in greater detail as follows. 
       I—Restricted Protection 
       [0070]    When a client selects the “restricted” protection privacy setting  33 , the client implicitly stakes a claim as the rightful owner of an uploaded digital image. As the rightful owner, the client may restrict usage of the uploaded image by other users of the local photo sharing site storing the uploaded digital image. It should be understood that the term “usage,” in the context of restricting usage of an uploaded image, refers to denying other users from incorporating a given user&#39;s uploaded digital image into any other clients personalized photo album. 
         [0071]    The election of the “restricted” protection setting  33  by a client has implications whenever another client subsequently uploads a digital image to one of the local photo-sharing host sites associated with the managing entity, and that subsequently uploaded digital image is determined to be similar to a digital image uploaded from another client at an earlier point in time. In this case, the use of the subsequently uploaded digital image is restricted at the uploading local photo-sharing host site. Further, the first uploading client, who is the rightful owner of the formerly uploaded digital image, is notified of a determination of similarity between the former and latter uploaded images. Such notification may be transmitted to the first uploading client by various means, including, for example, an e-mail notification, by a network webpage communication to the client, by a phone call, facsimile or any appropriate communication. 
         [0072]    It is noted that the “restricted” protection setting  33  is generally recommended for an uploading client in the case where the client is the only subject included within the uploaded digital image and the image is meant to represent the uploading client to other users visiting the local photo-sharing host site. 
       II—Semi-Restricted Protection 
       [0073]    By selecting the “semi-restricted” protection privacy setting  35 , a first uploading client claims his uploaded image as his own, but allows the usage of similar images which are subsequently uploaded by other clients for such time before the uploading client can make a usage decision. In one embodiment, this prescribed time begins from when a subsequently uploaded image, determined to be similar to the first uploaded image, is uploaded to a managing entity making a determination of similarity and ends at a point in time at which the first uploading client makes a determination regarding whether or not to allow the subsequently uploaded image, determined to be similar, to be ultimately used at the host web site. 
         [0074]    When a client elects the “semi-restricted” protection privacy setting  35 , in the event another client subsequently uploads a digital image to one of the local photo-sharing host sites associated with the managing entity and that subsequently uploaded image is determined to be similar to the first uploaded image supplied by the first uploading client, the use of the subsequently uploaded image is temporarily allowed by the local host site. The first uploading client is notified of a determination of similarity made at the local photo-sharing host system and is provided with the ability to choose whether or not to allow the use of the subsequently uploaded image by the second uploading client. Such notification may be transmitted to the first uploading client by various means, including, for example, an e-mail notification, by a network webpage communication to the client, by a phone call, facsimile or any appropriate communication. 
         [0075]    It is noted that the “semi-restricted” protection option  35  is generally recommended in the case where the client is not the only subject within an uploaded digital image, and the image is not meant to solely represent the client to other users at the local photo-sharing host web site. 
       III—Non-Restricted Protection 
       [0076]    By selecting the “non-restricted” protection option  37  at the preference page  300 , a client claims the uploaded digital image as his own, but allows the use of subsequently uploaded images from other users which are determined to be similar to the first uploaded digital image. Similar to that described above with respect to the restricted protection case, in the event another client subsequently uploads another image determined to be similar to the digital image uploaded from the first client, the first uploading client is notified of the subsequent upload. However, it should be appreciated that that this non-restricted protection option does not provide the first uploading client with the ability to allow or reject the use of the subsequently uploaded image supplied from another user. The first uploading client is powerless to allow or reject the subsequently uploading client from incorporating the first uploaded image into another personalized photo album at one of the local photo-sharing host web sites associated with the managing entity. 
         [0077]    In general, the “non-restricted” protection option  37  is recommended to an uploading client in the case where the client is not the only subject (i.e., image) within his uploaded digital image, and the client is not sensitive to other users “using” his uploaded digital image, as defined herein. 
         [0078]      FIG. 4  is an illustration of an exemplary rights profile  110  which is created as a result of clicking the “save” button  39  at preference page  300  (see  FIG. 3 ) in association with any of the local photo-sharing host web sites A, B and C. The rights profile  110  is preferably stored in a standard record format at local server  22  and includes at least the uploaded digital image  11  and certain privacy right settings  44  established in accordance with the preference page settings. The rights profile might additionally include other data  46  associated with the image file, such as the level of protection requested by the client, upload date, the URL associated with the uploaded image, the image size and the ISP of the client at the point of upload. In some embodiments, the rights profile may also contain a record of any additional instances  48  of the uploaded digital image  11  for which the rights profile was created. These additional instances may have been uploaded by other clients of the network, and whether that picture is allowed or restricted. 
       Similarity of Two Digital Images 
       [0079]    It is instructive to describe the criteria that may be used to determine when two images constitute a so-called “match.” This aspect of the invention relies on an existing field of technology that specializes in pattern matching and image recognition that is well-known. Such technology has historically been utilized by government agencies to compare pictures of criminals, for example identifying criminals in crowds based upon photos which are entirely different photographs of the same object (generally an individual&#39;s face). Such technology has also been used by content owners to screen the internet and other such large databases to locate unlicensed copies of trademarked materials, including but not limited to graphic images. In the present application, this same technology may be used to search for images that contain similar objects or similar images. Lastly, such technology has been articulated as a means of screening large amounts of picture data to identify and control content that would not be appropriate for viewers, for example minors. 
         [0080]    Presently, one particular technology company that leads the field in searching image databases to find similar images is LTU technologies of Washington, D.C. and Paris, France. LTU technologies licenses a proprietary technology to segment areas of pictures and index pictures according to their visual properties in a manner that allows for rapid search to find similar pictures, where the degree of similarity can range from duplicates (exactly alike), to cloned images (same image, but edited or transformed) to similar images (contains like elements). The applications articulated by LTU technologies are law enforcement, trademark infringement and image screening for the internet. LTU technology, which can be implemented as a solution for many applications, is not presented in any manner known to Applicants that indicates it has been conceptualized or employed to link consumer records associated with pictures that are similar. Such a system, when implemented as described herein in accordance with the present invention, facilitates the collaborative generation of content related to images uploaded by distinct individuals to distinct locations, where content related to all instances of an image can be associated and integrated. Such a system further allows for networking applications that allow users that own like photos that have either been separated by time or distance to share information without strict access to any one version of a file 
       Other Embodiments 
       [0081]    According to one embodiment of the present invention, rather than transmit the actual image file within a record format from the local photo-sharing host to be stored at the managing entity, representative meta-data might be extracted from the file at the local photo-sharing host level and transmitted to the managing entity to facilitate the cataloging and comparison of images. 
         [0082]    According to yet another embodiment, the present invention might be implemented together with the invention taught within U.S. Patent Application entitled “System and method for linking data related to a set of similar images,” (Attorney Docket No. J107U034US00, filed Feb. 16, 2007, to Loeb, M. R. et al.), incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, which provides a process for creating centralized records for pictures uploaded to a local photo-sharing host site, matching images contained with those records and linking data associated with those matched images in a manner that encourages collaborative data-sharing. In this embodiment, upon determining that the first uploader and rights owner of an image has provided supplementary data related to their image, and further allows other users to use their image on their own photo-sharing host site, a notification is sent to the uploading user communicating providing them the ability to integrate this supplementary data into their own 
         [0083]    There have thus been provided new and improved methods and systems for providing photographic rights management and identity protection. 
         [0084]    While the invention has been shown and described with respect to particular embodiments, it is not thus limited. Numerous modifications, changes and enhancements will now be apparent to the reader.