Face book, exif and copyright.

[Phil V]

That was my point though, as a point of clarity, they're not removing your copyright. They're removing copyright info.

It's important to keep the distinction. And you're right, they shouldn't do it. But back to my first answer, it makes no difference! Your rights don't change when the info is removed.

That said, it ought to be an offence, as it could possibly lead to the creation of orphan works, and there's a chance that in future they could be seen as aiding and abetting the abuse of copyrighted work.

In the US, the removal of a watermark is considered a more serious offence than just copyright infringement. And this should be seen in that vein.

 

[PMN]

Do you know what? I'm going to stry off topic just long enough to put you right.

Perhaps your point would come across better if you were less patronising. Just a thought.

At the end of the day the choice is yours, and personally I don't really care which choice you make (because it's your choice, not mine). Worry about pointless stuff or enjoy what you do, it's entirely up to you.

 

[munch]

 

[neil_g]

I wouldn't post something like this without doing tests. My results are outlined in post #1.

Like I said unless they changed it recently (I.e the last few weeks ).

sorry this took so long, was away from my desktop for a few days..

description auto filled with copyright from ITPC data.

 

[a1ex2001]

They should have made it criminal offence under the digital economy act to create an orphan work by removing ownership information

Anything on Facebook can never be an orphan work as ownership is clearly indicated by the original poster.

 

[Musicman]

In the US, the removal of a watermark is considered a more serious offence than just copyright infringement. And this should be seen in that vein.

The difference here I that you consented to FB's Terms when you joined the site.

If people upload their images knowing that's what will happen, that's their choice.

 

[Phil V]

The difference here I that you consented to FB's Terms when you joined the site.

If people upload their images knowing that's what will happen, that's their choice.

However, FB keep changing their terms, and I'm not even sure the random(ish) stripping of exif is covered. I'm not blaming FB per-se here anyway, I think that UK law should have a provision for the wilfull stripping of copyright info.

 

[Phil V]

Anything on Facebook can never be an orphan work as ownership is clearly indicated by the original poster.

So if I download your shots from FB sans copyright data and then upload them to a filesharing site hasn't an orphan work been created? And if it has, and FB stripped the data, are they complicit in the deed?

 

[a1ex2001]

Nope because if you do a reverse image search you will find the original in my flickr so it's not an orphan. Just because one copy of an image lacks exif doesn't make it an orphan image and I wish people would stop the hype and scare mongering

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

sorry this took so long, was away from my desktop for a few days..

description auto filled with copyright from ITPC data.

I explained this in post #1
<snip>
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.
<snip>

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

That was my point though, as a point of clarity, they're not removing your copyright. They're removing copyright info.

It's important to keep the distinction. And you're right, they shouldn't do it. But back to my first answer, it makes no difference! Your rights don't change when the info is removed.

That said, it ought to be an offence, as it could possibly lead to the creation of orphan works, and there's a chance that in future they could be seen as aiding and abetting the abuse of copyrighted work.

In the US, the removal of a watermark is considered a more serious offence than just copyright infringement. And this should be seen in that vein.

Ah, got you. They don't (they can't) remove copyright, but the copyright information. Yes good point.

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

Anything on Facebook can never be an orphan work as ownership is clearly indicated by the original poster.

But if I download your image and send it to a magazine editor and they print it because they think it's mine... what then? they don't know it came from facebook.

 

[desantnik]

Or the only place it appears on the Internet is when my customer posts a copy on their Facebook... Which would be fine if subsequently the exif remained...

 

[neil_g]

I explained this in post #1
<snip>
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.
<snip>

:shrug:

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.

I wouldn't post something like this without doing tests. My results are outlined in post #1.

sorry this took so long, was away from my desktop for a few days..

description auto filled with copyright from ITPC data.

http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l600/fallenlightphot/copyright_zps844675ec.jpg

:shrug:

and anyway like i said (which you seemed to skip over when i mentioned this before) anyone can download the image and strip the EXIF themselves anyway. having the EXIF in place is pretty pointless if someone REALLY wants to pass off your work as their own.

im out, if you really cant make up your mind what you want to talk about.

 

[PMN]

But if I download your image and send it to a magazine editor and they print it because they think it's mine... what then? they don't know it came from facebook.

No they wouldn't, nor would they know it came from any other site of the millions you could choose to take images from.

You seem to be inventing a problem that doesn't actually exist and I have absolutely no idea why.

 

[abdoujaparov]

:shrug:

and anyway like i said (which you seemed to skip over when i mentioned this before) anyone can download the image and strip the EXIF themselves anyway. having the EXIF in place is pretty pointless if someone REALLY wants to pass off your work as their own.

Locks are pretty pointless if someone REALLY wants to get into your house. Except, you know, they're not. They won't discourage a determined housebreaker, but they do discourage opportunists. EXIF data doesn't discourage knowing copyright abusers, but it will help if your photo goes viral through casual sharing.

 

[Phil V]

and anyway like i said (which you seemed to skip over when i mentioned this before) anyone can download the image and strip the EXIF themselves anyway. having the EXIF in place is pretty pointless if someone REALLY wants to pass off your work as their own.

im out, if you really cant make up your mind what you want to talk about.

This is where you're missing the point (at least as far as I can see) Neil:

Of course anyone can download an image and strip the IPCC data and claim the image. But the fact that they don't have to strip the data because FB does it for them is IMHO a bit too close to FB aiding and abetting the infringement. They have the choice and they've made a business decision to implement something which (again IMHO) ought to be illegal. As I said earlier, in the US removal of copyright data or watermarks is a more serious offence than simple copyright infringement, because it shows a wilfull disregard of the law.

A simple reverse image search won't help if the image has been cropped to a different ratio, an item has been recoloured or lots of other simple manipulations. See the recent Next T shirt infringement, I appreciate it was borderline 'derivitive works' but nonetheless it was wilful infringement and a simple reverse image search wouldn't have found it.

If you read my posts on infringement, you'll see I'm far from the 'sky is falling' camp. In fact I'm borderline lassaiz faire to the whole issue. But on this point I have to agree that FB are doing photographers a disservice by stripping the data.

 

[a1ex2001]

I think the other thing people need to remember is what Facebook is. It is a social network no a photography business portal. Like many things not designed for business use it has compromises and advantages and you as the photographer have to decide if the balance is right for you.

Millions of pictures are posted each day to Facebook only an insignificant percentage of which will have copyright info in the exif of which en even more insignificant number will actual be worth copying.

As a business on Facebook you are using their service to promote yours and should have a good idea how much business is being generated for you without costing you anything and I suggest the level of loss from lack of exif data is much much smaller than the business generated.


If your a business or individual who isn't making money from using face books free service then stop posting pictures if you don't like what they do!

 

[Phil V]

I think the other thing people need to remember is what Facebook is. It is a social network no a photography business portal. Like many things not designed for business use it has compromises and advantages and you as the photographer have to decide if the balance is right for you.

Millions of pictures are posted each day to Facebook only an insignificant percentage of which will have copyright info in the exif of which en even more insignificant number will actual be worth copying.

As a business on Facebook you are using their service to promote yours and should have a good idea how much business is being generated for you without costing you anything and I suggest the level of loss from lack of exif data is much much smaller than the business generated.


If your a business or individual who isn't making money from using face books free service then stop posting pictures if you don't like what they do!

This kinda also ignores Facebook's revenue streams. FB aren't offering small businesses a bit of free webspace out of the goodness of their hearts, they're using small businesses as a massive customer base who they are selling advertising to. A bit like Google's analytics is a vehicle to help sell Adwords, of course as a small business we choose how much to engage and whether to use the paid services, but don't try to pretend that FB is some generous free webhost who's terms we should accept without question.

It's not just photography businesses that could be potentially hit by this either, and I can't get my head round a major corporation behaving in a disgraceful manner and people just shrugging their shoulders. It's probably how the large corporations have got away with taking over the world, because people just accept their disgusting behaviour as something we can't change. It's amazing we jeer when MP's are jailed for a few grand's worth of expenses fiddling but we feel it's OK for multi nationals to set the agenda that they do business by, pay tax by etc.

 

[abdoujaparov]

If your a business or individual who isn't making money from using face books free service then stop posting pictures if you don't like what they do!

I just don't get this submissive attitude. What's wrong with trying to change things for the better?

As for Facebook, I'm not their customer, I'm their product. It's my eyes that they're selling, so excuse me for questioning their apparently-sacrosanct business practices.

 

[a1ex2001]

This kinda also ignores Facebook's revenue streams. FB aren't offering small businesses a bit of free webspace out of the goodness of their hearts, they're using small businesses as a massive customer base who they are selling advertising to. A bit like Google's analytics is a vehicle to help sell Adwords, of course as a small business we choose how much to engage and whether to use the paid services, but don't try to pretend that FB is some generous free webhost who's terms we should accept without question.

It's not just photography businesses that could be potentially hit by this either, and I can't get my head round a major corporation behaving in a disgraceful manner and people just shrugging their shoulders. It's probably how the large corporations have got away with taking over the world, because people just accept their disgusting behaviour as something we can't change. It's amazing we jeer when MP's are jailed for a few grand's worth of expenses fiddling but we feel it's OK for multi nationals to set the agenda that they do business by, pay tax by etc.

It doesn't ignore face books revenue stream they are happy with there side of the deal it is you is not satisfied so you either need to renegotiate (impossible as an individual) or vote with your feet. If enough people really thought this exif thing was a big deal it would damage face books side of the deal it clearly doesn't.

All this hand wringing about exif data in a world where big business actual does real evil is laughable. Pick your battles are target the real injustice in the world instead of wasting energy on something that is really nothing.

 

[Phil V]

It doesn't ignore face books revenue stream they are happy with there side of the deal it is you is not satisfied so you either need to renegotiate (impossible as an individual) or vote with your feet. If enough people really thought this exif thing was a big deal it would damage face books side of the deal it clearly doesn't.

All this hand wringing about exif data in a world where big business actual does real evil is laughable. Pick your battles are target the real injustice in the world instead of wasting energy on something that is really nothing.

Calm down Alex, it's not my battle, I happen to sort of agree with the OP. As I've said, I'm not the handwringing type about copyright or facebook. You could have read some of my previous posts and you'd undderstand that, instead you've jumped to a conclusion and completely misunderstood me ( I have no idea what you hope to achieve)

But none of that matters, you have no right to tell me what I can or can't think about FB and it's terms. I happen to believe that the US legal system has this on the money, stripping exif data or removing watermarks is wrong. Not because it's Facebook, but simply because it's wrong, and the way the law now works here regarding orphan works, makes it worse, because the more work that's out there with the info removed, the more chance that orphan works will be created. Only an idiot would deny that.

As far as the original problem goes, all it teaches me is to ensure I post in a way that preserves the data, instructions included. Simples (as the kids say).

So I don't have to wring my hands, stop using facebook or go on a one man crusade, I can make sure that I post my pictures in a way the info is retained. You really should have read the detail in the thread rather than just assuming that it's simply a case of a lot of old ninny's complaining about the new world.

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

I just don't understand why so many people who say they don't give a fig are getting so worked up that I do.Fair enough if your not interested in my efforts to change something... However pointless it seems to you, I'm doing you no harm!

 

[PMN]

I just don't understand why so many people who say they don't give a fig are getting so worked up that I do.Fair enough if your not interested in my efforts to change something... However pointless it seems to you, I'm doing you no harm!

You're doing no harm as such but you have been a bit smug and patronising in parts by telling people because they don't agree with you that they don't get it, that people are rolling over and playing dead and how you're going to 'put people right' as to things like Facebook quality. I've already said I couldn't give a stuff whether it's a big deal to you, just don't try act like some kind of photographic Jehovah's Witness and tell anyone else it should be a big deal to them. That's their decision to make, not yours. Accept their opinion and move on, it's simple.

 

[PMN]

That said I do agree in principle that it shouldn't happen. If it were a dedicated photo sharing site like Flickr containing large high quality images stripping EXIF then I'd think it were a little worse but I can't bring myself to get wound up about Facebook stripping it from compressed low quality images (regardless of how they'd look printed tiny).

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

You're doing no harm as such but you have been a bit smug and patronising in parts by telling people because they don't agree with you that they don't get it, that people are rolling over and playing dead and how you're going to 'put people right' as to things like Facebook quality. I've already said I couldn't give a stuff whether it's a big deal to you, just don't try act like some kind of photographic Jehovah's Witness and tell anyone else it should be a big deal to them. That's their decision to make, not yours. Accept their opinion and move on, it's simple.

Thanks for your opinion. Moving on...

 

[abdoujaparov]

http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157639831646583/

"Going forward, we will preserve the EXIF Copyright field from your original file in all resized versions of your image uploads."

Gosh. Looks like trying to change things for the better actually works. Whodathunkit?

 

[Musicman]

Wonders never cease!