5 ms·
From the article: "On Slate Jonah Peretti goes on to say ”would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image. But the prac
by sethbannon 13y ago
From the article: "On Slate Jonah Peretti goes on to say ”would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image. But the practical reality is that it is pretty challenging“."
Now there's an interesting startup idea.
- minimaxir 13y agoIt already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)
- deletes 13y agoI saw i paper a long time ago of a stenography quite resistant to transformations so the basic information was still extractable from the picture. Still i think that a photograph of the monitor would remove it. EDIT: Even a photo filter might not succeed if it did a homogenous effect across the pixels. I have to find that algorithm someday.
- minimaxir 13y agoKnowing BuzzFeed, they would probably just apply a photo filter and call it a day.
- maurits 13y agoNot at all. Enough methods, such as spread spectrum watermarking, survive a multitude of digital deformations and 'analog' attacks like printing and physically deforming. Action from 1.30 and German, but the demo is pretty clear. [1] [1] http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&obj=11689 http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&o...
- deletes 13y agoI can't watch the video, can you please provide some information/source about the technique.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThat doesn't make it any easier to license, does it?
- evan_ 13y agoDigimarc did this years ago but the problem has always been enforcement, not detection. As noted in the article, BuzzFeed knew where the image came from and could have figured out a way to license it pretty easily- but they didn't want to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimarc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimarc
- krapp 13y agoIt would be just as doomed as any other DRM scheme. You can't stop anyone from copying an image, removing any metadata that might be there, or even if they're clever, from cloning out a watermark.
- porsupah 13y agoReading the original quote, and assuming good faith, they're wishing for some system that would permit them to establish an image's owner. If you don't take steps to strip out typical metadata, such is indeed already present, in EXIF and IPTC fields.
- benologist 13y agoExploiting other people's content is fundamentally baked into the business models of these guys and their "I-can't-believe-it's-not-plagiarism" cousins.
- rorrr2 13y agoYou can just image search your photos every X months. I agree, it could be a startup.
- NelsonMinar 13y agoEXIF
- acdha 13y agoThis already exists: http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-metadata#Copyright%20Notice http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-m... The problem is that the people you most want to follow this are the least likely to check IPTC metadata first.
- Terretta 13y agoType: jhead -purejpg in.jpg out.jpg And no pesky EXIF or IPTC to worry about. Hence digimark and others that put the info in the image.
- acdha 13y agoThat was the point of my last sentence: metadata exists for honest people who choose to do the right thing. Anyone dishonest can trivially strip this but the snake-oil vendors like digimark only raise that bar enough to catch the most inept thieves. Put another way: Buzzfeed could trivially put a system into place to scan images to prevent mistakes. It would be a much harder problem to reliably stop dishonest editors – at that point, it'd be better to simply use something like TinEye or Google Image Search.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou're missing the point. IDing the copyright owner is the easy part. Licensing the picture is the hard part - you have to write an email to the person and there's all this tedious back-and-forth whereas what the buyer wants is a one-click button like on Amazon. Although the page you link to is a great resource, it's a sad fact that there's no metadata for 'Cost of 3-month nonexclusive license: $60 per million impressions. Remit-to: my_account@paymentprocessor.com'. All sorts of restrictions on usage and what-all else, but no fields for price or payment method...the only two things that a potential buyer actually needs to transact business. /facepalm
- acdha 13y agoSo in your scheme it would make sense to add some custom fields listing price and payment method rather than a URL where one could learn the current prices? In your hurry to make a teduously pedantic purported correction you might perhaps have misunderstood the problem: there are many ways to sell photos quite easily online but no way to force people to use one.
- lyndonh 13y agoIPTC http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0089 http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0089
- chrismarlow9 13y agoUntil I take a screenshot of the image and then use that. Printers create a light band of yellow on every print that helps identify the printer it came from (counterfeiting with a store bought printer is stupid), maybe something along those lines would work?
- chasing 13y agoHaha. What he meant was: "I'd love it if it remained 'pretty challenging' to identify who owned what on the web, because our whole business model would crater if we had to pay for the content we rip off."
- ajays 13y agoEvery photo on Flickr has a copyright tag attached to it. At least on Flickr it's not challenging at all.
- joshwa 13y agoThere's an industry effort to set up a universal licensing language and registry: http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp https://www.plusregistry.org/ https://www.plusregistry.org/ Though I can't say it's gained much traction.