A method and system to record, register and verify copyright material

Abstract

The invention relates to a method and system to record copyright works and original material and register copyright material in an efficient and secure way The system scans a digital image and generates a unique digital file (UDF) associated with at least one image parameter. A processor determines a total pixel count and pixel ranges along two axes that define an array (x, y) from the digital image and provides image data including pixel colour constituents to a verification engine. The verification engine obtains for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the array, a unique identifier (xi, yj) for the at least one pixel address (x, y) and the processor associates the unique identifier (xi, yj) and the at least one pixel address (x, y) with an identity of a submitting party. A memory, which may be a database, stores the unique digital file (UDF) for subsequent retrieval. The invention provides a digital copyrighting tool to legislative bodies to resolve copyright issues in a less subjective way and provides near instant and time-stamped proof of ownership.

Description

[0001] A Method and System to Record, Register and Verify Copyright Material

[0002] Field of the Invention

[0003] This invention relates to a method and system to record copyright works and original material and register copyright material in an efficient, robust and reliable way.

[0004] The system also provides a registry for copyright material with an independent, competent authority. In one embodiment the invention provides a method for determining whether a putative copy infringes copyright in a recorded / registered original work or copyright material. The invention has particular, but not exclusive application, to determining copyright of material recorded as two-dimensional 2-D images.

[0005] Background

[0006] An author or creator of an original work may entitle that work to gualify for automatic copyright.

[0007] However, there are often problems associated with providing proof of ownership and origin of original works and whether those works gualify for or are entitled to copyright.

[0008] Copyright disputes often reguire mediation or court procedures with lengthy and costly steps, whether those affected are individual creators or corporations.

[0009] Electronic watermarking or trademarking of digital material or so-called digital content is not always as streamlined and user-friendly as is often desired. This leads to many original works and creations effectively being unprotected, leaving many artists, designers, authors and creators vulnerable. With the advent of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (Al), and new markets like non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the need for an efficient, reliable and inclusive copyrighting repository and affirmation process is more critical than ever.

[0010] Furthermore, intellectual property right (I PR) disputes often rely heavily on subjective interpretations. With increasing digital content being created, it is challenging to determine copyright infringement accurately.

[0011] With artists like Greg Rutkowski whose artwork has been used in over 90000 artificial intelligence (Al) prompts, the ability to define image ownership is greater than ever.

[0012] In many jurisdictions the cost of copyright and trademark disputes can vary depending on the length and jurisdiction of where litigation occurs can exceed many hundreds of thousands of US dollars. In general, copyright lawsuits are complex and expensive, and delays can result in associated lost revenue due to the infringement and damage to a corporate brand.

[0013] A paper https: / / www.mdpi.com / 2571 -9408 / 5 / 4 / 202 was published on pixel-to-pixel colour comparison software created by Wafermasters called ‘Pieman’ (RTM). The software referenced is relatively small (20MB) and was developed to compare pixel-to-pixel colours in order to obtain a more precise understanding of information held within digital images.

[0014] Prior Art

[0015] US 2011 / 0064263 (Tandent Vision Science Inc) discloses an automated, computerized for processing an image. A computer system receives an image recorded at and transmitted from a remote source and processes the image by segregating the transmitted image into a corresponding intrinsic image. The corresponding intrinsic image is then used to perform a preselected task.

[0016] It is an object of the invention to provide a systematic, automated and reliable method and system to perform pixel comparison.

[0017] Summary of the Invention

[0018] In one aspect is provided a system for scanning an image and generating a unique digital file (UDF) associated with at least one image parameter comprises: a processor which determines a total pixel count and pixel ranges along two axes that define an array (x, y) from the digital image and provides image data including pixel colour constituents to a verification engine; the verification engine obtains for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the array, a unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y); the processor associates the unique identifier (xi, y and the at least one pixel address (x, y) with an identity of a submitting party; and a memory stores the unique digital file (UDF) for subsequent retrieval.

[0019] A number of software comparison systems exist to identify differences between two images. However, an object of the present invention is to record, and time and date stamp, exact colour details of an image at a specific time of creation, thereby generating a uniquely dated ‘fingerprint’ for the image. This ‘fingerprint’ is stored and is available for subsequent verification purposes, such as where questions of origin or ownership are raised, for example in disputes about copyright infringement.

[0020] The invention therefore operates differently to existing software comparison systems in which comparison is made of two images side by side.

[0021] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention the system compares a digital ‘fingerprint’ of one image with stored digital ‘fingerprints’. This allows, for example, a remote user to check if a particular image, photograph or design has already been created and is owned by a third party.

[0022] In a preferred embodiment a processor generates a two-dimensional (2-D) grid; and the verification engine overlays the image with the 2-D grid. The verification engine then obtains, for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the grid, a unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y).

[0023] Although reference to a grid is made it is appreciated that from metadata already saved in image includes data relating to total pixel count and pixel size. Therefore, these image data may be extracted from a digital image, for example by the processor. The system is therefore able to extract total pixel count and pixel size of a digital image; and obtain and read each pixel to derive its colour constituents or colour breakdown.

[0024] An image can be a range of sizes and different resolutions. By way of example, 300 dots per inch (DPI) and 72 DPI are the most common. The system uses the total pixel count, and dimensions of an image, to remove problems of determining image resolution. A 300 DPI image which is 100 mm wide by 100 mm deep, has more overall pixels than an identical size image whose resolution is 72 DPI. When both images are reduced to size 100 mm x 100 mm, the 300 DPI image has a higher resolution as more pixels are packed into the image. The software recognises that and removes the need for DPI as it just counts the overall pixels of the image.

[0025] Dots per inch (DPI) originates from the printing industry and 300 DPI is the standard number of dots a printer has to print within one inch for the print work to look acceptable and easy to view or read. Alternatively, as all screens are at present only built to have 72 DPI, computers adapt higher resolution images to this format to display. This means that grabbing an image from a screen always provides a low resolution until software is used to upscale the image.

[0026] However, in both cases the software ignores these restrictions and count the total number of pixels in the x and y axis to obtain an overall total pixel count.

[0027] Although there are a number of software programs that have been developed to identify differences between two images, none operates in the manner described below.

[0028] An object of the invention is therefore to record and time stamp with exact colour details of an image, optionally with a unique IP address and / or device, at a specific time thereby creating a unique dated ‘fingerprint’ of the image. The system may include a receiver which receives identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is derived from location specific data corresponding to a physical location of the submitting party.

[0029] The receiver may be adapted to receive identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is derived from an internet protocol (IP) address of a device used by a submitting party.

[0030] The receiver may be adapted to receive identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is preferably derived from user supplied data.

[0031] The verification engine may derive the unique identifier for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a red (R) signal in the at least one pixel.

[0032] The verification engine may derive the unique identifier for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a blue (B) signal in the at least one pixel.

[0033] The verification engine may derive the unique identifier for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a green (G) signal in the at least one pixel.

[0034] The processor may apply time and date stamp data to the unique digital file.

[0035] The processor may receive the image from image data sources in the group comprising: a digital scanner, a digital camera, a digital video transmitter, a digital image streaming platform and a computer operative to generate digital images.

[0036] The memory may include a secure database which stores the identity of the submitting party and the unique digital file and data relating to an asserted copyright owner.

[0037] The verification engine may adjust an overall size of the grid and mesh spacings in the grid whereby the grid overlays the image in order to be in congruence with at least one dimension of the image.

[0038] The processor may operate in accordance with compression software to compress a data file.

[0039] The system includes a verification engine which performs a comparison of the unique digital file (UDF) with files which are stored on one or more distributed public digital ledgers storing third-party digital image data.

[0040] The system includes a subscriber portal which verification engine which performs a comparison of the unique digital file (UDF) with files which are stored on one or more distributed public digital ledgers storing third-party digital image data.

[0041] In the system a code generator may be used to provide a code corresponding to the unique identifier and issues the code as a certificate of authenticity. In a further aspect is provided a method for scanning an image and generating a unique digital file (UDF) associated with at least one image parameter comprises the steps of: generating a two-dimensional (2-D) grid; overlaying the image with the 2-D grid; obtaining for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the grid a unique identifier for the at least one pixel address (x, y); associating the unique identifier and the at least one pixel address with an identity of a submitting party; and recording the unique digital file in a memory for subsequent retrieval.

[0042] A preferred example of the invention will now be described, by way of example only, and with reference to the Figures in which:

[0043] Brief Description of Drawings

[0044] Figure 1 shows a flow chart showing the steps of one aspect of the methodology relating to image metadata (fingerprint) generation;

[0045] Figure 2 shows a flow chart showing the steps of one aspect of the methodology showing determination of putative infringing image;

[0046] Figure 3 shows a basic example of the methodology of Figure 1 ; and

[0047] Figure 4 shows a schematic representation of a system which may be used to implement examples.

[0048] Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiment

[0049] Referring to the Figures, there is shown a general methodology and system for creating a unique digital file (UDF) relating to any type of data recorded or stored, for example, a 2-D image, which may or may not be a digital 2-D image.

[0050] Whereas the method can be applied directly to 2-D images, and in particular digital (digitally stored 2 D images), the technique of the invention also allows audio data and video files to be handled by employing a prior step of converting an audio or video file into one or more digital 2-D image files, for example.

[0051] Conventional application specific software (APP) and artificial intelligence (Al) technology may also be used to perform the method or any of the method steps.

[0052] Figure 1 shows an example of a flow chart showing the steps of one aspect of the invention. In a general method, the precursor to the method is obtaining a 2-D image, whose ownership is unknown, which may be a digital image and is provided in step S1 as described below. This may be provided for example by a digital scanner of an original drawing, original painting or original photograph into a 2-D digital image. Alternatively with modern digital cameras and image processing equipment, the aforementioned digitised images are provided automatically.

[0053] It should be noted that the 2-D image does not necessarily need to be digital.

[0054] Therefore, in a first step S1 a 2-D image is provided.

[0055] In a subsequent step the 2-D images are processed as follows.

[0056] In step S2, a two-dimensional (2-D) grid is generated; the grid is automatically created to fit to the image.

[0057] In the next step, step S3, the grid is overlayed onto the image and for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the grid, a unique identifier for the at least characteristic of at least one pixel address (x, y) is obtained. This characteristic of the image portion, inside the pixel of the overlaying grid, is determined and stored, for example in a metadata file. This provides a metadata file for the image.

[0058] The characteristics of the image may be based on the colour or hue of that portion of an image. So, in an RGB colour system, and where the pixels of the grid are at the smallest level, the characteristic (C) may be one of red, blue or green (R, B or G) or any mixture of two or more of these primary colours. So, pixel (data) for each pixel is recorded in an RGB colour scale. More details of this step are explained below.

[0059] So, in basic form the metadata may be any number of (Xj, yj, C) where x is the x coordinate of the grid and yj is the y co-ordinate, and C is the characteristic of the image within the pixel.

[0060] In step S4, the metadata file preferably includes information of an identity of a submitting party. It should be noted that the identity may be a person’s name, mobile telephone number, a recorded user ID or even a location address, such as an IP address of a modem in a building or a specific electronic device or asset or a combination of these discrete data forms. In other words, the identity data may be derived from one or more forms of identity data, including location specific data, corresponding to a physical location of the submitting party.

[0061] Optionally identification (ID) labelling may be performed by a receiving party, and so software at a user input may not necessarily include this labelling step.

[0062] Therefore, the so-called user labelled metadata may be represented as (Xj, yj, C, UID) where UID is the unique identifier and where a precursor image is a digital 2-D image with an overlaying grid pixel arrangement. That is the number of pixels in the x and y axes of the grid correspond to a selected pixel.

[0063] It should be noted that the above example is a basic example and a plurality of, or preferably all of, the pixels in the grid may be processed such that the metadata file includes data on the characteristics of a plurality of image portions in a corresponding plurality of grid pixels. So, step S3 may be repeated for any number of pixels in the grid. Thus, the metadata may be described as follows: (((xi, yj, Cjj)a, (xi, yj, Cij)t>, (xi, yj, Cjj)c, (xi, yj, Cjj)n) UID)) where i and j vary and may be any nominator designation on the x or y coordinate of the grid and where any number of 1-n number of pixels are extracted and processed.

[0064] Steps S1 , S2 and S3 are generally performed at a user (or input) terminal although any of the steps shown in the Figures may be performed at the user end or at a central location of a competent authority.

[0065] Step S4 may be performed by a user or may be performed after steps S5 or S6. As mentioned above, a receiver terminal or processor can be located at a receiving terminal which may be an independent regulatory body, such as a national intellectual property office (IPO) or verification institute, where an ID, or optionally encrypted ID, is included in the label.

[0066] The skilled person would be aware of different techniques in which this may be performed including being done via a user registration scheme; or the receiving party may include or upload the ID information based on, or being IP address, or such like from where a metadata file has originated.

[0067] In the next step S5 the unique digital file (UDF) is time stamped. This may be done at the same time, or in a subsequent step at a later time. For example, when the metadata file is sent or received at a verification institute such as an intellectual property office (IPO) or central database for record keeping such as a national or international database. Thus, step S4 can also be carried out at different locations.

[0068] It should also be noted that step S4 can be performed on or subsequent to steps S5 and / or S6.

[0069] It is also understood that as different steps may be performed at different times, locations, and database; the method thus readily lends itself to be performed using distributed ledger technology that is sometimes also referred to as ‘blockchain’ technology.

[0070] In a subsequent step S5 the metadata file is forwarded to a verification institute such as an intellectual property office or central database for record keeping such as a national international database. Optionally a certificate may be issued at the same time or subsequently as any of steps S4, S5, or S6. The certificate may be transmitted and / or stored as unique indicia, for example as alphanumeric data, bar code form, QR code or any combination of these indicia.

[0071] Preferably it is the competent authority or verification institute who issues the certificate, although user operated software may be adapted to perform this optionally in synchronism with the competent authority or verification institute. The software may issue a certificate before the certificate is sent to an IPO or at the IPO.

[0072] Preferably issuance of the certificate is done after all relevant forms of identity data is received; therefore, after Step S5.

[0073] Figure 2 shows diagrammatically how putative material, which may infringe copyright of an original work, can be checked with original authenticating data to establish or prove copyright infringement. The steps here are preferably carried out automatically by an independent, competent authority or authorised legislature.

[0074] If there is copyright material which is suspected of infringement, the metadata file data and pixel data are retrieved with respect to the original work as depicted for example in Step S7.

[0075] Next in step S8, the suspected infringing version has applied to it a similar process to steps S1 , S2, S3 are performed. In step SO the metadata files from the database can be compared to that processed for the potential infringing version. The skilled person would be aware of the various and numerous techniques which lie within the scope of the invention. This may be done by comparing characteristics of the image portions with respect to one or more or even all the grid pixels. The resultant step S10 determines infringement from the comparison. Steps S7 and steps S8 can be done in any order.

[0076] Schemes registering the Characteristic C

[0077] As mentioned in an RGB colour scheme where the pixel overlay grid, at the smallest size, the characteristic may be red, green or blue (R, G or B) or any mixture of two or more of these primary colours.

[0078] It is to be noted that other colour formats and colour combinations may be used and provided for this function. Although the following section refers to colour images, it should also be noted that a black and white (B / W) system may be used; so effectively the value of C may be B / W black or white on a smaller scale at the lowest level of pixels which therefore also enables half-tone or monochrome original images to be scanned and registered. In another embodiment a greyscale may be used. Where the grid pixel size is larger than the smallest pixel unit (observable or provided to be processed in a digital 2-D image thereof), then the characteristic C may be one of for example any numbers of possibilities. If there is a RGB colour model; this is based solely on red, green and blue and there are 256 sub-units (0 to 255) of these three primary colours to determine a colour then this provides for 2563combinations which is 16 777 216 unique colours per grid pixel. If these are mapped over a 10 000 x 10 000-pixel grid, many there are in excess of 1016unique combinations.

[0079] As such all these combinations are unique for a particular image and the skilled person could implement software in steps S9 and S10 to determine whether one combination is the same as another and so verify whether an image is a copy or if it is unique.

[0080] So, to summarise, when a digital image is loaded and a system is operational software, at a pixel level (each and every pixel can only be one colour at any instant in time), and so the colour is thus effectively fixed.

[0081] Therefore, at the time the invention is operative to scan the image, every pixel is one single recordable colour, which processed as described above produces a unique digital fingerprint in the form of a metadata (file), which may be an encrypted metadata file, which is time stamped at the same time or after receipt at for example, a central authority. As a further authenticator, a location specific data identity label may also be included.

[0082] So digital file in the form of a digital 2-D image is read via for example, a scanning process to produce a processed data file (metadata file) (effectively a sort of parsing) and time-stamped. The time stamping at that time or may be at a later date. Subsequently a certificate is issued. A time stamped data file may be stored which can be used later for comparison and verification, purposes. In example the methodology scans the image, and records data for any or each pixel based on a grid that is automatically created to fit the image.

[0083] The data file (effectively a metadata file) that is created is substantially smaller in size than the original image file, and thus uses less space to store. The file can be compressed further if required. The file may be recalled or accessed when needed. It should be noted that data compression techniques may be used to provide the metadata file. The metadata file can be regarded therefore as a digital (pixel level) fingerprint of the image subsequent to scanning and processing according to the above step.

[0084] When the copyright is not normally applied for, as under most jurisdictions copyright exists automatically in a qualifying work (as stated under the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention). As stated earlier, metadata files may be time stamped on creation or at a later time, and the time stamped metadata file is held securely on file or in repository or other digital database or storage facility, for example at a competent authority. Such uniquely dated ‘fingerprints’ which are created are highly accurate and unique to the image files processed by the system. Thus, the system and method allow effectively copyright works to be registered.

[0085] Example 1

[0086] In Figure 3, there is shown a digital image 10 comprising a plurality or array of image pixels, showing an eagle on a pine tree in a scene 10a. There is also shown an enlarged portion of the scene showing the eagle. Reference numerals 12 and 12a show corresponding regions of a putative infringing copy. At least one pixel is a selected pixel, denoted 11 on the eagle’s breast, and the characteristics are compared with the corresponding pixel on the copy. This step establishes whether an image is genuine and further what alterations have been made to an altered a copy. So here fingerprint (metadata) is computed, recorded and used downstream is the pixel in the x and y coordinates Xnand Ymon the Figure, and its colour.

[0087] As mentioned earlier, more than one pixel may be selected for the verification process(es).

[0088] It is important to note that in some embodiments, before the images are compared by using methodology, the possible infringing image may be cropped, shifted, scaled darkened, lighted or otherwise amended with schemes or image processing software so making it more problematic to provide a best match. This may be performed using known mathematical statistical techniques such as correlation regression Bayesian and other such statistical techniques.

[0089] Hardware

[0090] Figure 4 shows a schematic representation of one example of a system which may be used to implement examples.

[0091] There is shown a user terminal, such as a computer, or mobile communication device 1. A digital image 8 is uploaded, for example from a digital camera or from a scanned image.

[0092] A metadata file of the image is generated as described above. As mentioned, this may be referred to as fingerprint. Although this procedure could be performed by a central authority it is advantageously performed by the terminal 2 as the metadata file (fingerprint) has substantially less data than the image.

[0093] The metadata (fingerprint is sent to a central authority where it is stored securely with time stamp performed preferably by the central authority. Secure storage of such metadata fingerprint (files) is shown by reference numeral 5. An authentication certificate can be generated and sent back to the user; this is effectively an acknowledgement of receipt and successful processing / registering and storing.

[0094] In any copyright infringement dispute a potentially infringing image undergoes a substantially similar process to generate metadata file data. For example, in terminal 6, in Figure 4, a metadata file can be sent to the central authority for processing as described above. If the comparison fails, then a warning or alert is sent to one or more parties as shown by reference numeral 7.

[0095] Once the unique digital file data file is created, the data file is time stamped and deposited in the repository or secure server. The user may be sent an SMS message or an email confirmation certificate. When another user presents a copy of a similar image in an attempt to register copyright, an algorithm or search engine, for example using a server based on tags / keywords or other variables, checks the data file fingerprint and compares with an earlier stored data set. The level of copy acceptability is therefore determined by the authority in the settings of the authority server-side software.

[0096] General

[0097] Methodology according to the invention provides the known exact co-ordinates of each and every pixel within a file and correlates these coordinates to the specific (single) colour of each pixel.

[0098] Previously when someone generated an image and saved it to a memory on their computer, the save date became something they may have been used in disputes to prove date of creation and therefore ownership. However, this only served to prove when an image was saved to a hard drive. It did not aid in the subjectivity of whether or not an image was an original or a copy.

[0099] Methodology according to aspects of the invention provide an accurate certificate verification and a robust and reproducible automated method of image comparison and authentication, together with of the ability to time and date stamp an original work. Furthermore, the methodology in enhanced refinements allows a user or authority to determine which pixels of a deliberate copy have been changed or altered.

[0100] The invention provides an objective and reliable method of determining copyright infringement without human error or variation or one which is reliant on expert testimony.

[0101] The intention is not to look for specific differences between two images. This function is only used when disputes into rights of image ownership or infringement arise. In that instance images are compared in a digital format effectively ‘side by side’. Instead the invention employs a number of devices to obtain a unique digital file (UDF); effectively enabling comparison of one digital fingerprint (of a new image) with a repository of fingerprints already stored for example on one or more databases, such as a distributed digital ledger. This allows a remote user to check and verify if an image or design they may be using has already been created and rights belong to a third party, before it is used.

[0102] The methodology brings a quantitative method of detecting copyright infringements and provides near instant and time-stamped proof of ownership.

[0103] So, the methodology proves means of digital copyrighting and applying for intellectual property rights, whilst at the same time provides a tool to legislative bodies to resolve copyright issues in a less subjective way, giving lawyers a quantifiable value with which to work.

[0104] Variation may be made to the above embodiments, for example, machine learning may be employed which utilises the ability of artificial intelligent (Al) systems to be taught certain processes and filters that can be used to alter an appearance of an image. A filter is a mathematical formula that is applied to the image and effects certain pixels and or all pixels in a certain way. Al can be taught what a filter does and how that alters for example a combination of RGB numbers, for example, a black and white image, being inverted so the image becomes white and black. The Al can also be taught that the all the pixels form the same pattern but the values of RGB have been reversed.

[0105] It will be appreciated that variation to the aforementioned embodiments may be made without departing from the scope of protection as defined by the claims.

Claims

Claims1. A system for scanning a digital image and generating a unique digital file (UDF) associated with at least one image parameter comprises: a processor which determines a total pixel count and pixel ranges along two axes that define an array (x, y) from the digital image and provides image data including pixel colour constituents to a verification engine; the verification engine obtains for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the array, a unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y); the processor associates the unique identifier (xi, y and the at least one pixel address (x, y) with an identity of a submitting party; and a memory stores the unique digital file (UDF) for subsequent retrieval.

2. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processor generates a two-dimensional (2- D) grid; and the verification engine overlays the image with the 2-D grid and the verification engine then obtains, for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the grid, a unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y).

3. A system according to claim 1 or 2 includes a receiver which receives identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is derived from location specific data corresponding to a physical location of the submitting party.

4. A system according to claim 2 or 3 wherein a receiver which receives identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is derived from an IP address of a device used by the submitting party.

5. A system according to any of claims 2, 3 or 4 wherein the receiver receives identity data of a submitting party, the identity data is derived from user supplied data.

6. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the verification engine derives the unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a red (R) signal in the at least one pixel.

7. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the verification engine derives the unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a blue (B) signal in the at least one pixel.

8. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the verification engine derives the unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y) using a value derived from a green (G) signal in the at least one pixel.

9. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the processor applies time and date stamp data to the unique digital file.

10. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the processor receives the image from image data sources in the group comprising: a digital graphic / image creating application, a digital scanner, a digital camera, a digital video transmitter, a digital image streaming platform and a computer operative to generate digital images.1 1. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the memory includes a secure database which stores the identity of the submitting party and the unique digital file and data relating to an asserted copyright owner.

12. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the verification engine adjusts an overall size of a grid and mesh spacings in the in the array (x, y) whereby the grid overlays the image so as to be in congruence with at least one dimension of the image.

13. A system according to any preceding claim wherein the processor operates in accordance with compression software to compress a data file.

14. A system according to any preceding claim includes a verification engine which performs a comparison of the unique digital file with files which are stored on one or more distributed public digital ledgers storing third-party digital image data.

15. A system according to claim 14 includes a subscriber portal which verification engine which performs a comparison of the unique digital file with files which are stored on one or more distributed public digital ledgers storing third-party digital image data.

16. A system according to any preceding claim wherein a code generator provides a code corresponding to the unique identifier (xi, y,) and issues the code as a certificate of authenticity.

17. A method for scanning a digital image and generating a unique digital file associated with at least one image parameter comprises the steps of: determining a total pixel count and pixel ranges along two axes that define an array (x, y) from the digital image and providing image data including pixel colour constituents to a verification engine; operating the verification engine to obtain for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the array, a unique identifier (xi, y,) for the at least one pixel address (x, y); associating the unique identifier (xi, y,) and the at least one pixel address (x, y) with an identity of a submitting party; and storing the unique digital file (UDF) in a memory, such as a database, for subsequent retrieval.

18. A method according to claim 17 includes the step of generating a two-dimensional (2- D) grid; and employing the verification engine to overlay the image with the 2-D grid and the obtaining, for at least one pixel address (x, y) in the grid, a unique identifier (xi, y for the at least one pixel address (x, y).

19. A method according to claim 17 or 18 including the step of deriving identity data from location specific data corresponding to a physical location of the submitting party and / or identity data of an electronic device.

Images