News.com using Flickr photos

[Longshots]

I dont think I'm communicating my point very well about Flikr. Yes its a personal choice.

OK Xenidis, the pro version - the paid version is quite different. I was aware of that and I was not referring to that as I previously did mention I was describing my points about the free version.

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata. So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

[Xenedis]

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I think we are in agreement that it's a personal choice.

Consider this, though:

How many other online providers or businesses with which you transact have clauses allowing them to pass your information/content to their affiliates?

I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata.

No, it does not.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_mands/888315999/meta/ as an example.

Flickr users have the option of suppressing the EXIF data. It is still contained in the original image; Flickr just doesn't display it.

If you see an image on Flickr which lacks the EXIF data:

1. the user's software has stripped it before it was uploaded;
2. the user has display of EXIF data disabled; or
3. there wasn't any EXIF data in the first place.

So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

I don't think the free (or otherwise) status of an account says anything useful about the capability of the user to employ safeguards or methods appropriate for that user's level of concern re the usage of his or her images.

Watermarking (or a lack thereof) is again a personal choice which has no bearing on the hosting site.

The difference between a free Flickr account and a "Pro" account is basically more bandwidth, more storage, more images visible, more sets, and a few other features, none of which has any bearing on EXIF data, privacy or rights. I'd also expect Flickr's T&Cs to apply across the board.

From http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#28:

What do I get with a Pro account?

When you upgrade to a Pro account for just US$24.95 a year (or R$45.90 if you’re in Brazil ) you get all this:

* Unlimited photo uploads (20MB per photo)
* Unlimited video uploads (90 seconds max, 500MB per video)
* The ability to show HD Video
* Unlimited storage
* Unlimited bandwidth
* Archiving of high-resolution original images
* The ability to replace a photo
* Post any of your photos or videos in up to 60 group pools
* Ad-free browsing and sharing
* View count and referrer statistics

Compare that to what you get with a Free Account:

* 100 MB monthly photo upload limit (10MB per photo)
* 2 video uploads each month (90 seconds max, 150MB per video)
* Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images
* Post any of your photos in up to 10 group pools
* Only smaller (resized) images accessible (though the originals are saved in case you upgrade later)

I really don't think the free vs. paid (and therefore, more feature-laden) status of a Flickr account is a determining factor in the potential for a user's images to be misused.

It can happen to anyone who posts an image on a public site.

Ignorance or vulnerability to image misuse is not confined to people who aren't willing to spend money on image hosting.

[Longshots]

I'd accept that you're clearly more informed on how to use Flikr then I am. I had a look at the links you posted which display the exif data.

I then chose some images at random, in particular some images of the Christchurch earthquake, and I couldnt read the Exif Data or the Meta Data ? So where am I going wrong ?

Also I thought it worth adding this link to an article complaining about this exact issue:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...rip-exif-data/

[Xenedis]

I then chose some images at random, in particular some images of the Christchurch earthquake, and I couldnt read the Exif Data or the Meta Data ? So where am I going wrong ?

The situation is exactly as I described in my last post.

The user's image either didn't contain EXIF data (eg, scan), the user's image processing software stripped it (eg, "Save for Web") or the user has disabled the display of EXIF data in his/her account settings.

If you downloaded a non-original (ie, Flickr-resampled) JPG file and looked in it for the EXIF data, maybe that's where you're going wrong. If you viewed the image on the Flickr page, there is an option to view the EXIF data.

Also I thought it worth adding this link to an article complaining about this exact issue:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...rip-exif-data/

I cannot comment on Facebook, as I have never had an account there.

However, the crucial comment re Flickr is this:

The only exception is that I can now confirm Flickr is preserving the data on original images, just not on the automatically generated resized versions.

The author says he can now confirm. Perhaps this means that he hitherto wasn't aware that Flickr has ostensibly always preserved the EXIF data in original files.

I just downloaded an original-size image from my Flickr account, which I photographed in 2005 and published on Flickr in January of 2006. Unsurprisingly, the EXIF data is there, just as I expected.

The automatically-generated smaller versions Flickr produces do not contain the EXIF data, but the EXIF data is stored in a database, meaning it is viewable even when viewing images at non-original sizes, from the Flickr page. The EXIF data is also extractable via the Flickr API. I know this, because I use the API, and I wrote code specifically to do that.

The author of that article considers it a bad situation that the EXIF data is not preserved in the smaller images generated by Flickr.

I consider it annoying and unnecessary, but I don't think it's quite a case of the sky falling in. Remember, anyone can edit EXIF data in a JPG, so the mere fact that it has the photographer's name, business name, URL, et al. in it doesn't provide any sort of guarantee that it belongs to whomever the EXIF data claims.

Digital watermarking is probably the most effective method of proof of ownership of a digital image.

[Longshots]

Thanks for the information.

It has been informative, and ta for your patience

Re no Exif Data - yes sure it can be changed and removed. However, without data with the new Orphan Works bill being promoted through the United States, and similar concepts in Australia, and Europe, having that data, is going to be really essential.

[stoogest]

Interesting discussion. To me this is the first time I've actually seen a 3rd party utilise Flickr photos for their own purposes. It's so easy to just tick the box saying that you agree to all the t&c's assuming that 'she'll be right' or 'why would anyone care about my photos on flickr'... Reinforces the importance of making an informed decision.

Andrew.

[Kym]

IT hat on.... some thoughts and observations

1. EXIF can be edited (very easily) and offers no protection

2. Some form of DRM is needed to truly protect images. i.e. a digital signature, in that your public key is needed to view the image (after it is encoded by a private key) which proves ownership

3. All DRM systems can be beaten by the technically adept, but are getting harder to beat

4. DRM will creep into consumer generated content in the next 10 years

5. Watermarks and low-res images on the 'net are your best bet for now

[maccaroneski]

For those that want to check:

http://www.tineye.com/

For the record I have no problem with Flickr's TOS - as Xenedis points out there is no problem (IMO) that extends any further to those you might have making images available on the net that is specific or endemic to Flickr.

I'm also not sure as to where Flickr's associated entities enters the picture on my reading of the extracted TOS, but again as Xenedis notes, it's a moot point.

Agreeing with you twice in one post Johnno - I'm going soft...

[Xenedis]

Agreeing with you twice in one post Johnno

This is obviously an outrage.

I'm going soft...

That's way more information than I needed to hear.