Face book, exif and copyright.

Brian_of_Bozeat

Brian_of_Bozeat

Jeff
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,232
Name
Brian (not Jeff)
Edit My Images
No
<snip>

Dear Facebook.

If I post an image directly to a facebook wall, with copyright in the exif, the copyright is stripped from the exif and not displayed alongside the image here on facebook...

If I share directly from flickr then it's the same story.

If I upload to an album, "Title" and "Caption" will be displayed from the exif as well as copyright. BUT EVEN IF I DO anyone can right click and download that image and when they do the copyright is no longer in the exif data.

Why is this please?

<snip>

I wonder how (or if) they will respond?
 
Doubt they will respond with anything but something within the terms to say that they're entitled to do what they do ;) I guess the reason that they do it is to save data space...exif may not take up that much data for a single file but but I'm sure it adds up when your talking millions of photos a day :eek:
 
Whether or not the data is there doesn't really change anything, so there's not much point getting uptight about it.
 
Don't use Facebook (:lol:, autocorrect changes farcebook to Facebook! Must agree!) for showing photos, or if you want to ensure nobody can misappropriate your shots, keep them offline completely and never let a print out of your hot, sticky fingers!
 
When I upload to FB the copyright in the exif automatically pulls through, or at least it did last time I uploaded.

Having the notice the is pretty irrelevant anyway as if someone wants the image they'll take it.
 
Introduce a BIG FAT watermark in the middle of your images and resize to 600x600 max if your that bothered.
 
What are the terms in the licence you agreed to grant them when you uploaded the photo?

Also, don't rely on Flickr's pointless JavaScript that prevents you downloading images. That just increases the download hassle by a couple of seconds.
 
I know all about watermarks etc. and a 600 pixel image still looks pretty good at 4" printed in a magazine. :rolleyes:

My point is, fb REMOVE the copyright in the exif when someone downloads an image from their site. Clearly there are quite a high percentage of people who have replied here who do not understand or are just not interested in the significance of this. Oh well. If you haven't got any socks on you can't pull em up!

I was expecting more empathy from my fellow 'togs tbh.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
I know all about watermarks etc. and a 600 pixel image still looks pretty good at 4" printed in a magazine. :rolleyes:

My point is, fb REMOVE the copyright in the exif when someone downloads an image from their site. Clearly there are quite a high percentage of people who have replied here who do not understand or are just not interested in the significance of this. Oh well. If you haven't got any socks on you can't pull em up!

I was expecting more empathy from my fellow 'togs tbh.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's a case of lack of empathy, the reality is however if someone wants a photo you put online they will take it..exif or no exif, so all you can do is protect the image to the best of your ability
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
My point is, fb REMOVE the copyright in the exif when someone downloads an image from their site. Clearly there are quite a high percentage of people who have replied here who do not understand or are just not interested in the significance of this. Oh well. If you haven't got any socks on you can't pull em up!

I was expecting more empathy from my fellow 'togs tbh.
Click to expand...

Facebook have also been (inaccurately) criticised for leaving the EXIF data in place, as photos taken with camera phones, etc. (which quite probably account for the majority of images uploaded) will also include GPS location data, which may lead to unexpected disclosures of where you were for those people that don't know about such things.

http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-assuages-photo-posting-concerns-talks-exif-data-2013-08

In fact, while he was on the run, John McAfee was arrested by the Guatemalan police after posting an image on Twitter without previously stripping the location data in September. Twitter doesn't strip location data by default.

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/5488/what-your-photos-say-about-you/#

If you were in danger from a violent former partner, it might be a matter of considerable concern that your location could be available to anyone on Facebook.

While I suppose it's possible that they could remove just location data, or leave only IPTC copyright data, it seems FB simply strip out ALL embedded metadata.

I guess it's a balancing act between photographers' copyright and the potential abuse this information.
 
Given the amount of photographic copyright abuse that goes on with Facebook in one form or another, I'd just avoid placing my images on there.

Cheaper than blood pressure tablets....
 
desantnik said:
Given the amount of photographic copyright abuse that goes on with Facebook in one form or another, I'd just avoid placing my images on there.
Click to expand...

Well, for various reasons, I don't have a Facebook account at all; which makes things like this easy :lol:
 
Unless they changed it recently Facebook take the copyright into from the IPTC data embedded from Lightroom for example and puts it in the description field. Obviously this is editable and/or removable by the poster.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
I know all about watermarks etc. and a 600 pixel image still looks pretty good at 4" printed in a magazine. :rolleyes:

My point is, fb REMOVE the copyright in the exif when someone downloads an image from their site. Clearly there are quite a high percentage of people who have replied here who do not understand or are just not interested in the significance of this. Oh well. If you haven't got any socks on you can't pull em up!

I was expecting more empathy from my fellow 'togs tbh.
Click to expand...
So what. What's stopping someone saving the image and stripping the exif themselves.

Either slap a big watermark across it (even that doesn't work most of the time) or don't put it anywhere near the Internet.

And for the record Facebook are very hot on removal of breaches of IP.
 
Musicman said:
Facebook have also been (inaccurately) criticised for leaving the EXIF data in place, as photos taken with camera phones, etc. (which quite probably account for the majority of images uploaded) will also include GPS location data, which may lead to unexpected disclosures of where you were for those people that don't know about such things.

http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-assuages-photo-posting-concerns-talks-exif-data-2013-08

In fact, while he was on the run, John McAfee was arrested by the Guatemalan police after posting an image on Twitter without previously stripping the location data in September. Twitter doesn't strip location data by default.

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/5488/what-your-photos-say-about-you/#

If you were in danger from a violent former partner, it might be a matter of considerable concern that your location could be available to anyone on Facebook.

While I suppose it's possible that they could remove just location data, or leave only IPTC copyright data, it seems FB simply strip out ALL embedded metadata.

I guess it's a balancing act between photographers' copyright and the potential abuse this information.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Rob. You have made some good points here. I can see the sense in removing some of the exif under some circumstances but I still think (as you say yourself) that they could do that and still leave the IPTC copyright data in. I have had a generic reply from them to say that they don't reply to individuals but that they do read all communications that they are sent. :rolleyes:

I know I am swimming against the tide on this one (and I think it is a massive shame that so many 'togs are just rolling over and playing dead) but hey ho.
 
neil_g said:
Unless they changed it recently Facebook take the copyright into from the IPTC data embedded from Lightroom for example and puts it in the description field. Obviously this is editable and/or removable by the poster.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't post something like this without doing tests. My results are outlined in post #1.
 
Brian, why do you think we "are rolling over and playing dead" Most of us on here know that as soon you upload a photo it can be downloaded and used by anybody else. Having copyright written on the exif data (that I doubt most non togs look at) makes not a jot of difference.
 
They should have made it criminal offence under the digital economy act to create an orphan work by removing ownership information
 
desantnik said:
They should have made it criminal offence under the digital economy act to create an orphan work by removing ownership information
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
That doesn't create an orphan work.
Steve.
Click to expand...

It might not be the be all and end all of creating an orphan work but having your contact details in the EXIF is the most reliable, and simplest way, to ensure that it cannot become an orphan work.

The only defence against having your exif stripped automatically - if you want to ensure your image is quickly and easily traceable back to you/the owner is to put a visible and informative watermark - which is what I do on my blog (retains exif), Facebook and Flikr. So I would also want it to be an offence to remove a watermark from a digital image as well.
 
I looked and I couldn't see anything there. It looked more to me like encouraging rights rape rather than discouraging it
 
munch said:
Brian, why do you think we "are rolling over and playing dead" Most of us on here know that as soon you upload a photo it can be downloaded and used by anybody else. Having copyright written on the exif data (that I doubt most non togs look at) makes not a jot of difference.
Click to expand...

I think you just answered your own question. non togs will not look at the exif, but the editors etc that they pass the work to might.
 
Last edited:
If you are so concerned that people might make money out of your photos or use them without your permission, then don't post them simples. Definitely not rolling over just accepting the realities of the situation. That horse has well and truly bolted (use of photographs by others on line)
 
The reason I stated that removing the data does not create an orphaned work is that in order to use an orphaned work, you must show that you have made a reasonable attempt to find its owner.

If you go through the process of removing the data then you obviously know that it is there. Therefore, claiming it as an orphaned work would be fraudulent.


Steve.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
I think it is a massive shame that so many 'togs are just rolling over and playing dead
Click to expand...

That's not the case, it's more that if I worried as much as you do about this I'd never shoot or post anything. There are risks associated with absolutely everything we ever do as human beings; we risk being mugged walking down the road, we risk choking when eating, we risk being in an accident if we get in a car, we risk photos being 'stolen' if we upload them anywhere on the net. You still get in cars, right? You still eat?

I'm not by any means saying stealing images is justifiable; it's theft, plain and simple, but there has to be a point where getting so uptight about this stuff causes you more upset than an image actually being stolen. Anyone wanting to seriously steal an image could very easily strip it themselves anyway, I don't see what difference it makes if Facebook strips it.
 
munch said:
If you are so concerned that people might make money out of your photos or use them without your permission, then don't post them simples. Definitely not rolling over just accepting the realities of the situation. That horse has well and truly bolted (use of photographs by others on line)
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post did you? The rest (the bigger picture) may be related but I started this thread to discus the reasons why Facebook (arguably the biggest sharing site in the world) REMOVE the exif when people download images from there.
 
PMN said:
That's not the case, it's more that if I worried as much as you do about this I'd never shoot or post anything. There are risks associated with absolutely everything we ever do as human beings; we risk being mugged walking down the road, we risk choking when eating, we risk being in an accident if we get in a car, we risk photos being 'stolen' if we upload them anywhere on the net. You still get in cars, right? You still eat?

I'm not by any means saying stealing images is justifiable; it's theft, plain and simple, but there has to be a point where getting so uptight about this stuff causes you more upset than an image actually being stolen. Anyone wanting to seriously steal an image could very easily strip it themselves anyway, I don't see what difference it makes if Facebook strips it.
Click to expand...

Please see my posts above.
 
very strange.. someone just posted some pics I sold them.. It has all my exif in...the pics have gone up and at the side is all the info i put in the captions box with copyright owner appended to that... very strange.. hasnt done that for yonks for me..
 
PMN said:
it's theft, plain and simple
Click to expand...

It's actually infringement rather than theft. Theft is when you have the item taken from you which is not the case if someone makes a copy.

However, despite that, your post is the most sensible one in this thread.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
More than any other forum in my 20+ years on the Internet, many TP users seem to have a "why do you even care?" attitude that I find inexplicable. If someone wants to post images to Facebook, then I think it's unquestionable that it would be better if copyright EXIF wasn't stripped. Good for Brian for trying to do something about it, and a big resounding raspberry to the "so what?", "it won't make any difference", "don't post to Facebook" brigade.
 
I don't see how it does make a difference though. Facebook compresses the hell out of images at upload so anyone wanting to steal an image for serious purposes is going to have difficulty using it, and besides that anyone trying to seriously steal it can easily strip the data themselves. What's the point in getting wound up about Facebook stripping EXIF when anyone can strip it easily anyway?
 
As one of the pillars of the present day cyber space they shouldn't be operating like that. Quite simple really. If the rights we were talking about were Hollywood's we'd see action. This is the true crime as usual, big money is protected, small guys shat upon.
 
PMN said:
I don't see how it does make a difference though. Facebook compresses the hell out of images at upload so anyone wanting to steal an image for serious purposes is going to have difficulty using it, and besides that anyone trying to seriously steal it can easily strip the data themselves. What's the point in getting wound up about Facebook stripping EXIF when anyone can strip it easily anyway?
Click to expand...

Anybody who knows it's there can strip it, yes. But why are any solutions short of perfection unacceptably too much effort? I'd imagine that for images posted to Facebook, the problem is not savvy EXIF strippers, but unthinking sharers - and there are still websites/news outlets out there who will respect copyright if they can easily find out who owns it.
 
KIPAX said:
very strange.. someone just posted some pics I sold them.. It has all my exif in...the pics have gone up and at the side is all the info i put in the captions box with copyright owner appended to that... very strange.. hasnt done that for yonks for me..
Click to expand...
Read post number 1 for an explanation.
 
abdoujaparov said:
More than any other forum in my 20+ years on the Internet, many TP users seem to have a "why do you even care?" attitude that I find inexplicable. If someone wants to post images to Facebook, then I think it's unquestionable that it would be better if copyright EXIF wasn't stripped. Good for Brian for trying to do something about it, and a big resounding raspberry to the "so what?", "it won't make any difference", "don't post to Facebook" brigade.
Click to expand...

Thanks Keith. :thumbs:
 
PMN said:
I don't see how it does make a difference though. Facebook compresses the hell out of images at upload so anyone wanting to steal an image for serious purposes is going to have difficulty using it,
Click to expand...

Do you know what? I'm going to stry off topic just long enough to put you right. A 600 pixel image from fb looks pretty good in a magazine at 4 inches long. (trust me on this one I'm looking at one right here on my desk) and [for the record] I'm not wound up, I am very calm. Just because I don't believe in shrugging my shoulders and letting some gigantic organisation get away with "shady at best" practices without question or challenge doesn't mean I'm losing my cool.

Aaaand, we're back!
I started this discussion to talk about fb removing copyright from images that are downloaded from there, I realise that there are many related issues of a similar nature regarding copyright infringement but I'd like this to stay on topic if possible please, to gather the thoughts of others so that I can make a stronger case to put to facebook in respect of this. Thanks for all the help so far everyone. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top