45 ms·

I agree these are under-used but they face the same issues as the other methods like putting the data in text near the image on a web page or presentation slide

I agree these are under-used but they face the same issues as the other methods like putting the data in text near the image on a web page or presentation slide. These fields, same as all Exif metadata, can be overwritten or removed by anyone with access to the file. The data can be faked by someone intending to deceive, or it could disappear when posted to big sites like Facebook or Twitter who routinely remove Exif data by default (presumably to protect the majority who don't understand how GPS tagging works on mobile phone photos, etc). Once the photo metadata is gone, it is too easy for others to claim it is an 'orphan work' and avoid liability under copyright law. At the opposite end of the spectrum, people like me who release most images as CC0 are annoyed that that license tag was stripped from the metadata, preventing others from freely reusing them. I use and rely on Exif tags a lot but they are fragile and you cannot rely on them staying embedded with your images once they hit the web.

snowwrestler 11y ago
The data can be faked or deleted within IPTC fields, of course. What IPTC fields have over the typical ways of handling attribution is that they are not left behind when the image file is copied--so they should be more resistant to accidental removal of attribution metadata. On most websites, the attribution is a line of text that is displayed next to the image. Anyone copying the image, who wishes to preserve attribution, must also separately copy the attribution text. Then they need a way to store that text, and keep it associated with the image. Not easy, actually! > Once the photo metadata is gone, it is too easy for others to claim it is an 'orphan work' and avoid liability under copyright law. You cannot avoid liability this way. Under the law, it is the responsibility of the person using an image to know that they have the right to use it. Just claiming "I thought it was orphaned" does not work if you are being sued by the actual image rightsholder. > I use and rely on Exif tags a lot but they are fragile and you cannot rely on them staying embedded with your images once they hit the web. Yes, this is my point! They're fragile because web services don't preserve them--but theoretically they could. The cynical side of me thinks that a lot of web services don't want to know all the rights data for the media they carry. Ignoring rights gets them more traffic and engagement, and under the relevant law (the DMCA), they are allowed to. All they have to do is remove infringing images when the rights holder requests it.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The data can be faked or deleted within IPTC fields, of course. What IPTC fields have over the typical ways of handling attribution is that they are not left behind when the image file is copied--so they should be more resistant to accidental removal of attribution metadata. On most websites, the attribution is a line of text that is displayed next to the image. Anyone copying the image, who wishes to preserve attribution, must also separately copy the attribution text. Then they need a way to store that text, and keep it associated with the image. Not easy, actually! > Once the photo metadata is gone, it is too easy for others to claim it is an 'orphan work' and avoid liability under copyright law. You cannot avoid liability this way. Under the law, it is the responsibility of the person using an image to know that they have the right to use it. Just claiming "I thought it was orphaned" does not work if you are being sued by the actual image rightsholder. > I use and rely on Exif tags a lot but they are fragile and you cannot rely on them staying embedded with your images once they hit the web. Yes, this is my point! They're fragile because web services don't preserve them--but theoretically they could. The cynical side of me thinks that a lot of web services don't want to know all the rights data for the media they carry. Ignoring rights gets them more traffic and engagement, and under the relevant law (the DMCA), they are allowed to. All they have to do is remove infringing images when the rights holder requests it.