I don't think people have an issue with your implementation, but your misrepresentation. OCR has a specific meaning and this is not resistant to it (at all), in fact it encourages people to do it because the text isn't already copyable.
What your service DOES block is casual copying and scraping. But the people who are going to be doing that (search engines and the like) are different from people who need actual protection from OCR (I don't know who that is, but presumably they've identified it as a threat and need to specifically mitigate it, a la CAPTCHAs).
By misrepresenting the actual security/obscurity of your service, you are putting people at risk with a false sense of security that's trivially defeated by anybody with minimal IT experience. It'd be like if Signal promised encryption but actually just implemented ROT13.
Which would you rather hear from, a bunch of devs saying "you're misrepresenting your product, might wanna tweak your marketing" or a bunch of burned users trying to sue you because you misled them into a bad situation?
What your service DOES block is casual copying and scraping. But the people who are going to be doing that (search engines and the like) are different from people who need actual protection from OCR (I don't know who that is, but presumably they've identified it as a threat and need to specifically mitigate it, a la CAPTCHAs).
By misrepresenting the actual security/obscurity of your service, you are putting people at risk with a false sense of security that's trivially defeated by anybody with minimal IT experience. It'd be like if Signal promised encryption but actually just implemented ROT13.
Which would you rather hear from, a bunch of devs saying "you're misrepresenting your product, might wanna tweak your marketing" or a bunch of burned users trying to sue you because you misled them into a bad situation?