(1 to 100 of 156 replies)
zettpress 2:55pm, 26 April 2007
I just noticed that the smaller versions of an image do =not= carry any IPTC or EXIF information (just the original file). IMO this is a serious flaw, because all the proper tagging (e.g. author, caption, keywords, or creation date) are lost. Also the copyright information is lost.

I'd like to suggest that the IPTC and EXIF data should be transferred from the original to the smaller versions as well. The image size could be altered accordingly in EXIF, and maybe a comment added that the image was resized by Flickr.

This way anyone can open the image (e.g. in Photoshop) and access the copyright information first hand. Should they have a question or if they want to licence the image, they know exactly where to turn to.

What do you think?

Now on User Voice:
(1 to 100 of 156 replies)
Cube101 14 years ago
Sounds like a good idea to me, if for no other reason than the copyright information. But if you are going to copy that, why not everything? sounds like a simple addition with great benefit.
steven noreyko 14 years ago
Flickr - PLEASE update your resizing scripts to keep metadata (especially the copyright field) instead of throwing it out. Or at least make it a user preference so those of us that are concerned can keep that information on our images.

If there is some logic that metadata makes the filesizes too large - I can understand this, but if anything - keep the contact info and copyright. This is crucial to avoid the images becoming orphans if they are copied from the site.

I agree to keep some fields with the smaller versions, but 1 field flickr doesn't erase. Compare any of my pics.


curl | exiftool -G -H -comment -
[File] - Comment : ZOO HELLBRUNN SALZBURG, 2007-09-13, K100, Copyr. 2007 by Albert Bogner, Salzburg,

2007-09 ZOO HELLBRUNN 006
Geoff Coupe 14 years ago
I support this suggestion.

I can see that the process would involve some computation for the EXIF data, but it should be a simple copy operation for IPTC metadata. So at the very least, let's have the IPTC metadata copied across to the resized images as well, please Flickr...
duncandavidson Posted 13 years ago. Edited by duncandavidson (member) 13 years ago
No software tool should strip off IPTC Creator/Copyright information. Flickr images don't just stay in Flickr, they spread out throughout the world appearing on websites, getting embedded into presentations, and the like. Once they've been taken from the site, their association with the Flickr user that uploaded them is broken. This impacts the ability for people to track down the creator of a photograph.

There are many outcomes of this, one of which is the fueling of the orphan work problem. Orphan works have become such a big problem that the U.S. Copyright Office has prepared a report on orphan works. According to the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke, orphan works probably comprise the majority of the record of 20th century culture.

In short, Flickr really needs to preserve IPTC metadata on resizing down to any usable size of image. In addition, Flickr needs to go back through its collection of images and migrate IPTC metadata for existing uploaded images to their resized counterparts. I know this last bit is asking for a lot considering the sheer size of the collection photographs that Flickr manages. However, I think it's necessary.

I've written more about this at:
hamoozie 13 years ago
This is a wonderful idea, I definitely agree with Mr. Davidson on this point - there needs to be some way to retain a link to the creator of the image.
mapgoblin 13 years ago
I agree, keep the IPTC, EXIF
Chris Adams 13 years ago
Strong agreement on this - internal metadata is the only realistic way to keep track of copyright, contact info, etc. and it's a nice reward for including keywords, captions, too.
greg.newman 13 years ago
I for one am starting to see my images in googles image search which in my opinion is simply a breeding ground for copyright infringement. It's a major flaw that these images can be downloaded and potentially used without the photographer ever being the wiser.

We spend a lot of time ensuring our IPTC data is updated just to have Flickr strip them out. Please rethink this process Flickr and update all images that have been affected. It should just be a batch reprocess.
handsomely road [deleted] 13 years ago
+1 for keeping IPTC tags
Austin Ziegler 13 years ago
Pretty please, Flickr. Any and all metadata should be kept.
Jim Lindley 13 years ago
+1 from me, stripping this data out doesn't make sense.
Jeremy Curry 13 years ago
This is an absolute necessity really. ALL information possible that comes with the photo, needs to stay with the photo, regardless of size. And Mr Davidson makes a great argument for the importance of the copyright information especially.
trite lunchroom [deleted] 13 years ago
Flickr has done a lot to preserve and maintain metadata - this one is a glaring oversight that needs to be fixed. Please Flickr, keep all metadata on uploaded images even after they are resized.
Hutson H 13 years ago

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a "wonderful" idea, but a *necessary* one. I don't have a lot of images up – yet – but as someone getting ready to move a large portion of his portfolio online, this is a heck of a discouragement.

Hopefully, the Flickr team can implement this change in a timely manner, and make all of us happy.
dansully 13 years ago
Another +1 here - this is an absolute requirement for the ability to maintain copyright on one's images.

CobyR 13 years ago
Flickr... Please pay attention to this thread. The elimination of the IPTC and EXIF tags when shrinking an image is a vary bad thing. Please correct this action, and expend the development and computational resources to reapply said data to the previously resized images.
vjl 13 years ago
I discovered this fact about a month ago and have all but stopped posting non-snapshots to flickr because of it. It is hard enough to keep track of photos ripped off, but being able to not point to the metadata of the image as proof that an image is mine makes that job even harder. Yes, the original image does keep the metadata, but many times the smaller images are ripped off; after all, if they're being used on websites, they're not normally the original size images that get snagged.

Flickr Staff: thanks for seriously considering this request. Making this change would be a very, very welcome event for me and I'm sure a lot of other photographers who may not even realize the smaller image metadata is gone.
digitalnomad 13 years ago
+1 Please preserve as much of the original photographic metadata as possible. Particularly IPTC.

If Flickr is to be the place for photographers, then you should continue to be a champion of the creator and a healthy commons in these matters.

Thank you.
plαdys 13 years ago
At least the copyright information should not be removed from the pictures!
akrabat 13 years ago
The copyright information at least should certainly be kept in all deriviative smaller images that Flickr creates.


Rick Curran 13 years ago
Yes, I would like to see the IPTC meta data kept too!
hatscats323 13 years ago
Flickr is 'way cool. But removing identifying information from uploaded images seems, well, more "Sheriff of Nottingham" than "Robin Hood."
little addition [deleted] 13 years ago
Please modify the behavior of the resize process. It's vital that metadata be preserved. None of the rights models can work without it, including Creative Commons.
Jeremy Cherfas 13 years ago
I support this suggestion whole-heartedly. I've always assumed there was nothing one could do about it, but it seems that Flickr might be listening and might be persuaded to do the right thing.
Chris Boone 13 years ago
Yes, all metadata should be preserved whenever possible. In other words, +1.
Ben Lowery 13 years ago
+1 copyright info should certainly be preserved when possible.
indesignguy 13 years ago
+1. Copyright info should be in all versions of a photo.
dvdplm 13 years ago
+1 for the idea
-1 to flickr; this is a pretty bad miss.
blakeseely 13 years ago
Flickr should absolutely maintain the IPTC metadata in resized images - for all the reasons stated above.

All the tools in our workflow are getting more sophisticated about adding this info, and the current break in the chain is Flickr.

Please maintain this info!
Mr.B 13 years ago
+1 on preserving IPTC metadata.
Zhao Shouren 13 years ago
I support this idea
Silly Luis 13 years ago
I support this idea but I would love that they were able also to transfer/preserve PNGs metadata too.
kroepke42 13 years ago
Definitely a must have!
sewm 13 years ago
I would like to add my support for this. I can't imagine why it would be a good idea to remove any meta data from a re-sized image. Other than to correct any sizing information of course.
fwitness 13 years ago
I agree with this, this should be a requirement.
joshua_putnam 13 years ago
I asked about this in some thread or other when I first joined flickr, and there were quite a few posters who supported the current system and did not want EXIF/IPTC in smaller versions. Can't remember any of their arguments.....
joshua_putnam 13 years ago
Found one of the arguments that sort of makes sense:

One possible reason comes to my mind: if someone changes the privacy setting for EXIF display Flickr would have to recreate the smaller sizes for all photos of this person. Also, some people (who disabled access to the original file) might not like to embed EXIF data into the smaller sizes.

But it would still seem to me that including the data is a reasonable default behavior, unless someone has specifically chosen to hide EXIF data.
Dom Dada 13 years ago

Not fully hiding EXIF is a non-issue to me. What's there to hide?
If somebody really doesn't want to show it, they should strip it out before uploading – there are lots of freeware tools and uploaders to choose from offering such a feature.

Evaluating the more valuable interest, I'd definitely rank preserving IPTC and preventing copyright infringement over hiding EXIF for whatever reason.
Dom Dada Posted 13 years ago. Edited by Dom Dada (member) 13 years ago
Even better, Flickr should add another checkbox besides "Hide EXIF", "Strip out EXIF for good".

With both unchecked as a default, all filesizes should have intact EXIF and IPTC.
Gimbo 13 years ago
If nothing else, I'd be interested to hear why the metadata is currently being stripped (perhaps a technical issue to do with the resizing process, or a privacy issue as suggested above).
Andrea & Stefan 13 years ago
This is an important feature, esp. regarding copyright information. Currently, resized images are orphaned.
kellan 13 years ago
Hey all,

Lets take as a starting point we all get why this is serious, and we'd like to do the right thing, but at scale even the simplest seeming things are amazingly difficult.

From our perspective we get a couple of really nice properties by stripping EXIF/IPTC.

We put a fair amount of work into getting the best looking resized images, while making them small enough to serve quickly enough to provide a decent web browsing experience. We aren't doing this for storage concerns, this is about web browsing experience.

Bulking up the served images with data that no one sees, and only an (awesome) minority of people care about means that bandwidth has to come out of somewhere.

Another problem is the metadata can be arbitrarily large. You can stick Word documents in there. Or base 64 encoded copyright infringing MP3s.

A significant percentage of folks hide their EXIF (I'll try to dig up that percentage). So expectations would have be managed around that. We're simply not going to be able to go back and re-process people's images on preference update.

I'm sure there are more, those are just two that have come up in the past that I remember. (and probably this group could think of ones we've missed)

Can we maybe brainstorm around how to solve those concerns?

Is there a reduced profile of IPTC with predictable size constraints? (Creator and copyright got mentioned)

Maybe embedding some sort of pointer (URI) to the metadata-enriched originals? (of course many people hide their originals for obvious reasons)


[I'm Flickr Staff]
andyscamera 13 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, it's only really important to preserve the creator, copyright, and contact info. That way someone who grabs the photo from the site can still find me later if they want to, and they also have to make an intentional effort to remove the copyright info if they want to steal it. In any case, they can't pretend there was no such info in the first place.
Dom Dada 13 years ago
@ kellan and andy:

Credit, byline and copyright IPTC fields are limited to a total of 224 characters, so only preserving these and stripping out everything else would not weigh in too heavy, but it would address the major concern of attribution.

The pointer idea isn't exactly what the people are asking for, but it's better than nothing – e.g. with the autogenerated URL linking to the authors profile page, the image would be backtraceable just the same.
(Though adding metadata that most users aren't aware of could stir up some trouble, so sticking with a restricted set of IPTC fields seems smarter – it only affects those who care to add these.)
damaging toys [deleted] 13 years ago
+1 I agree
Gimbo Posted 13 years ago. Edited by Gimbo (member) 13 years ago
A request on behalf of Nikon DSLR users: if the solution turns out to be to include just a few metadata fields related to attribution, please include the "User Comment" field (called "Image Comment" in Nikon's in-camera menus). As far as I'm aware, it's an EXIF rather than an IPTC field. Nikon limits input to 36 characters, so it should be safe to limit the field in resized photos (to prevent embedding of Word documents, MP3s etc.) It's currently included in Flickr's metadata pages - see any of my more recent photos.

Also see
Glifter Posted 13 years ago. Edited by Glifter (member) 13 years ago
I also wish to add support for this suggested change to Flickr. I hope that such a relatively easy (although perhaps CPU and disk intensive) upgrade will be implemented as soon as possible. At the moment, Flickr is a contributor to this problem instead of addressing it. The added info doesn't (and obviously cannot) be unlimited in size, but copyright, creator, and an autogenerated URL would be an excellent start.
duncandavidson 13 years ago
Kellan: Thanks for chiming in. I understand where the desire to optimize comes from, but please recognize that Flickr is not just a place to view images, it's become a place to take images and put them into other places. As such, a few hundreds of bytes is a very small price to pay to keep the metadata as to who owns an image into images served from Flickr. It's not just about making a small percentage of your users happy, it's about being able to understand what an image is and interpret it far into the future when it's been sourced into other systems from Flickr.

Also--a counterpoint about quick browsing experience: I dig the videos, but when you go to somebody's item page with a video on it, it starts loading the video immediately. There's no choice to it, no tease image so that I can make the decision to load or not. It just loads and goes. I'm not going to argue if that was a correct design decision or not, but I will point out that you're over-optimizing essential data from images for bandwidth while under-optimizing video viewing bandwidth.

(oh, and I dig the videos. I don't fall into the "no videos on Flickr" camp :) Let's just be clear on that)

As far as I'm concerned, Copyright, Creator and related attribution fields which indicate who owns the rights of the image are the non-negotiable required fields. They are small and lightweight. The prevention of creating orphans as well as the potential to help users and other machine systems know who created and owns the rights to your users images should be more than enough payback for the small size that they occupy.

Everything _past_ that point is totally negotiable. I'd like to see caption/headline/object, at least down to the 500px size, but that's a significantly lesser priority than copyright/creator in my book. (500px being the starting size that most people would "borrow" for use, restorage, etc.) Maybe a pointer link is useful, but given that images sourced from Flickr might live life on systems past Flickr's lifetime, I'm not sure it's an appropriate long term solution.

As far as embedded files go, yah, they can definitely get stripped. You can convert to sRGB if something is in some other profile and dump the ICC profile. All of that is fair game in my book.

On the no-regeneration on a preference change, I get that it's something that shouldn't happen on a preference flip, but I have 6000 images that are in Flickr that need copyright/creator info. If you enable this for new images, but there's no way to go back and mark the old photos, I've still got the same problem for a vast library of interesting, useful, and valuable photos--including every O'Reilly conference shot for the last 3 and a half years. Would I really have to re-upload all of those and break links? Or replace each image by hand? That'd be a problem as well. I'd just a soon kill my account than try try to do that by hand.

Anyway, I hope that helps and I hope that something can be done to rectify this issue.

Adam Maddox 13 years ago
Agreed, IPTC tags should be maintained across all converted image sizes.
muppindotcom 13 years ago
+1 !!!
I agree that all data associated with my photos should be kept with all sizes of that photo.
SatoGypsyRose 13 years ago
I also agree- all contact information and metadata must be preserved.
Blue Planet Photo 13 years ago
Well, cost of space might be moot in the face of many lawsuits against Flickr for violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by stripping owner copyright data from uploaded images. Ownership and copyright information must be preserved in image files uploaded to Flickr. That's been said and said here, so that's it.

I refuse to pay for a Pro account while IPTC data is being stripped and encourage others not to subscribe or renew until Flickr addresses this problem. Delete your images if necessary to send a strong message.

Like others, I will not upload any commerically viable images without copyright and ownership information being retained. Even then, I place a visible copyright notice on all photos I upload to Flickr to help counteract the missing info (and probably would continue to do so even if IPTC data was not stripped).

Flickr can be a great resource and many professionals use Flickr (though the copyright issue is not important just for professionals, but for all Flickr contributors). It would go a very long way if Flickr were to recognize this and step up to respect the works of those using the service. Other sites do, why is Flickr so far behind?
Dirkvdw 13 years ago
IPTC tags should be maintained across all converted image sizes. ... hear hear!
vjl 13 years ago
Is there any status update on this topic? I really want to go back to posting stuff other than snapshots.

Kyudos Posted 13 years ago. Edited by Kyudos (member) 13 years ago
Blue Planet Ahem....where did you get the idea that IPTC data is being stripped? Your originals are 'as uploaded' copies, of course, you need to be Pro to access the originals.

The data is not 'stripped' from the smaller sizes, it just isn't transferred during the conversion, for sensible reasons (which you are free to disagree with).
juicyrai 13 years ago
How to buy a photo on Flickr - more reason why Flickr should keep the EXIF/IPTC data across all file sizes.
TimBrook | Photo 13 years ago
+1 come on Flickr sort out the resize engine to transfer EXIF data, please!
Tyson Cecka 13 years ago
Metadata is becoming more and more important, if I'm going to take the time to enrich the originals so much I'd like to see it reflected in the Flickr sized photos as well! 13 years ago
Vote me in for IPTC support across all sizes...

Also: Why not exhibit IPCT on those images not coming from a camera? Example: If I upload a scanned image where there is not EXIF, Flickr will automatically not show IPTC... Even though it is there! Very frustrating.
iacas 12 years ago
I can't believe this is STILL AN ISSUE. I'm seriously considering deleting my flickr account. Kellan, I appreciate the response, but it's mildly insulting. A lot of people would "care" about the issue if they were aware of it, and the number of people who "care" about something should never prevent a company from doing what's right.
taupokina 12 years ago
Vote me in for this IPTC tags across all sizes - I would have thought maintaining this is far far better for individuals that the minor file size diff.

To be honest I'm surprised you haven't got round to fixing this before now
Thomas - Minneapolis Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Thomas - Minneapolis (member) 12 years ago
+1 for keeping metadata with all picture sizes save, perhaps, the smallest thumbnails. I want GPS info, especially, to stick around after resizing.

Although I've a Pro account, I've not used it much (so far). I am about to re-publish all of my online photographic content, and am considering switching to from here to Picasa. Having this feature would help keep me here.

kellan - If you're seriously worried about someone using metadata for steganography, then can stick a (reasonable) maximum length on all arbitrarily extensible fields.
flaky vacation [deleted] 12 years ago
duncandavidson 12 years ago
Another year, another tilt at the windmill.

Here's what a photo with metadata from flickr SHOULD look like:

What Every Photo on Flickr Should Have, But Doesn't

Here's what it DOES look like:

What's Wrong With This Picture?

This isn't just a matter of "I want my name to go with my photo", it's a matter of the commons. The metadata of a photo, including creator, title, and caption, are important and should be preserved for the future. And not just a future of 10 minutes from now, but a future of 50 years from now or more.
jakerome 12 years ago
Theory 12 years ago

It's really past time that this issue was addressed, IMHO.


(deaf mute) 12 years ago
I never even realised the EXIF was stripped from smaller sizes. Rather defeats the point of me adding the Meta and encouraging people to use the CC licence on my pix if the attribution I included is taken out.
Please fix this.
ColleenM 12 years ago
Truly, Madly, Arty Lee

If you have licensed an image with a CC license, the original is available and has all the EXIF data.
douglasfshearer 12 years ago

i did not realise this data was not transfered until recently. Definitely makes me reconsider my pro account payments.

Please sort this out! Thanks.
FlyButtafly 12 years ago
I didn't realize this either. Please add my vote...
Patrick Costello 12 years ago
I see no harm in copying some basic identification data to other sizes, but would suggest this be limited to fixed length fields or be otherwise capped in some fashion. We already see enough complaints of the site being slow without adding to page load times unnecessarily.
taupokina 12 years ago
Yeah, just to add this is only thing that stops me getting a pro account and using Flickr as my primary online setup.
JeromeF Posted 12 years ago. Edited by JeromeF (member) 12 years ago

@duncandavidson says:
No software tool should strip off IPTC Creator/Copyright information. Flickr images don't just stay in Flickr

This is wrong. The Exif spec especially says that if a tag is not known or if the image is modified the exif data must be stripped or modified accordingly.

In any case, this idea can not be implemented cause the Flickr feature to hide the exif data won't work anymore.

So when making this request please ask for removal of this feature too.

The best way to really implement it is to let the user specify WHICH exif tags he wants to be stored across the images. Imho Flickr should add a DEFAULT exif tag to all images which is AUTHOR: <URL to photostream>. This will help against abuse/people copying photos a lot.
drewgstephens 12 years ago
I absolutely agree with the topic starter - the EXIF/IPTC metadata should exist on all image size.
tarmo888 12 years ago
I think it is ok that EXIF is only on original file, but IPTC should be kept on all sizes.
Michelle Pittman Photography Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Michelle Pittman Photography (member) 12 years ago
+1 I also agree with The topic starter. EXIF/IPTC metatdata should stay, regardless of the size. I had no idea that this occurred, and it troubles me a lot. I like flickr, but this is a problem that shouldn't even exist. Please fix this, Flickr!
Tyler Gould 12 years ago
Holy cow! This should be fixed by now! I've been influential in at least 10-15 professional photographers starting to share their photos on flickr...(along with a decent number of pro accounts)...and flickr is saying(by silence) they don't care about copyright as long as the end user can view their photos quickly. Even if you just fixed this so all photos from here on out included it, it would be better than ignoring it and claiming that it's not important.
Anthony Citrano Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Anthony Citrano (member) 12 years ago
I totally agree that data should not be stripped in the resizing.

I am frustrated that this hasn't been addressed, at least for those who pay for "Pro." flickR should *absolutely not* be stripping creator and license data from the resized images.

This is just irresponsible and, as others have said, really feeds the "orphan works" monster.
Markus Merz Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Markus Merz (member) 12 years ago
(vote +1) What? Flickr is cutting out IPTC metadata from the small photo versions? This Is definitely not right. I expect the metadata to be in all versions.

vaccination_sensation 12 years ago
As flickr claims to the preferred hosting solution for serious and professional photographers, it seem ludicrous that casual photo sharing sites like photobucket and imageshack maintain all metadata in resized versions.
Something im sure would be more appreciated a thousand times more by the users of Flickr than those other sites.
SteelToad 12 years ago
More than an oversight, or a bug, or a feature request, but isn't flickr itself violating copyright by providing copyrighted images to the public with the copyright removed. How can anyone possibly go after somebody for stealing their images if they can say "I downloaded it from flickr" as their excuse.

The metadata absolutely should stay with resized images !
Patrick Costello 12 years ago
What has the metadata got to do with copyright? Does that mean film shots don't have copyright?

I'm curious - where does Flickr make that claim? The story I understood was that Flickr targeted the ordinary everyday snapshots and were as surprised as anyone when more serious photographers showed up.
SteelToad 12 years ago

"What has the metadata got to do with copyright?"
It is where the copyright information is stored

"Does that mean film shots don't have copyright?"
Well, techincally, they don't. If I see a photograph sitting on a park bench by itself, there is no copyright with that photo. Of course the image may be copyrighted, but it's up to the owner of the copyright to maintain that separate from the photo, unless it's printed on the photo. (This must be very difficult for film photographers)

flickr should no more be removing the copyright metadata from resized images than I should be xeroxing a photo and putting white-out over a copyright stamp.
Patrick Costello 12 years ago
I'm afraid you are incorrect on all your points.
Copyright is not stored in meta data. You have a copyright for anything you produce, from the moment you produce it until you voluntarily give it up, or until a number of years after your death.
Film shots are equally protected.
SteelToad 12 years ago
Congratulations, you win this p*ssing contest.

Allow me to restate:
"Indication of copyright is stored in the metadata"

and a photo by itself has no indication of copyright unless it's printed on the photo.

To remove indication of copyright is wrong.

(you've got some awesome wildlife pictures by the way)
Patrick Costello 12 years ago
No pissing contest involved. You simply don't need to indicate the copyright; it's a given. You can use the meta data to provide contact information should someone want to arrange a licensed use of your image. But with/without meta data, the assumption should be all images are copyrighted unless proven otherwise (in public domain, produced by the US Government etc)
Flet©h Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Flet©h (member) 12 years ago
How anoying. I had no idea that flickr did this. I support the small versions having their meta data left intact. No doubt when multiplied over millions and millions of photos the file size implications really add up, however that should be a necessary overhead for flickr as removing this data is dodgy.

(Despite not affecting the copyright status one bit)
SteelToad 12 years ago
After re-reading, I did come across rather snippy (I see what you meant now) .. my apologies

Perhaps stripping out just the fields that hold large amounts of data would be a solution, but normally the meta-data is a tiny percentage of the file size. It would be nice also to let users know what is being removed from their files when it's done.
Joe Shlabotnik 12 years ago
I like the idea. Add my vote.
Wil C. Fry Posted 12 years ago. Edited by Wil C. Fry (member) 12 years ago
Add my vote too -- because it's usually the "medium" size that people copy/steal/re-post without permission, and that size doesn't contain the metadata.

However, the Flickr page where they stole the photo in the first place *does* display my copyright information, as well my "all rights reserved" license choice.

So I really don't see how it would prevent theft of photos to leave this field intact, except for the most honest of thieves (if that's not a complete oxymoron).
SteelToad Posted 12 years ago. Edited by SteelToad (member) 12 years ago
"However, the Flickr page where they stole the photo in the first place *does* display my copyright information"

Somebody using google image search might not see the flickr page, or at least skip by it easily. Same goes for any number of other image search sites.
RMXSeven 12 years ago
I would REALLY like/need the EXIF Data being kept intact for the other generated sized images.

Please implement this!
You could simply omit the image size data, and add in a comment that EXiF modified by Flickr.
(deaf mute) 12 years ago
After some experiments, it's become apparent that the IPTC/EXIF is still maintained in all resized versions of images on flickr, but it appears to only get removed under certain circumstances, apparently due to browser and operating systems.
If I download a thumbnail to my desktop (PC, Firefox 3.5) the META is removed, but if I look at the details online with Jeffrey's Exif viewer it's all still there.
The reason for the removal during download has not yet been isolated, but it would appear that flickr is not actually removing it.
Wil C. Fry 12 years ago
I *did* say "add my vote." :-)
John Grey Posted 11 years ago. Edited by John Grey (member) 11 years ago
With the the potential changes in copyright legislation this is looking increasingly important -

meta data on my originals is retained but only some of the data on resized images jeffrey's exif viewer shows this with one of my originals:

Here's the full data:

XMP — this group of metadata is encoded in 2,866 bytes (2.8k)
Title Horse and Rider
XMP (2,866 bytes binary data)
XMP Toolkit Image::ExifTool 7.82

EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 326 bytes (0.3k)
Artist John Grey
Color Space Uncalibrated
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Copyright All Rights Reserved John Grey
Exif Version 0220
Flashpix Version 0100
Make ZeroImage
Camera Model Name Zero69
Resolution 1 pixels/None
User Comment 21/11/09 a
XP Title Horse and Rider
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered

[and a lot more]

and this with the resized version
Here's the full data:

Application Record Version 4
Keywords Stanhope Show, racing, Weardale, John Grey, Pinhole, Fuji 400H, Epson 4990 Xsane Krita, zero69

Warning [minor] Unknown APP1 segment

[and more - but no exif data]

exif data, (but not IPTC) is also lost when I download resized images and view with exiftool.

is this a bug?
Flet©h 11 years ago
Given the pending fuck up that is the UK legislation on orphaned work it is very important that flickr retain the IPTC information on the resized versions. Otherwise any images found through Google image serch will appear to be orphaned work and a free for all.

Please change this flickr - It challenges the integrity of the site as a photosharing comunity.
John Grey 11 years ago
they do seem to retain the IPTC data - but not the exif, which is where my, (and I assume others') copyright notice appears.
CIMMYT 11 years ago
As far as I can tell from my experimentation, all metadata (both IPTC and EXIF) are stripped from all image sizes other than the original, however they are downloaded. I'm not using a viewer, just looking at the photo properties - where they *ought* to appear.

I add my voice to the many above - this is a significant failing in the way flickr works, and there don't seem to be any convincing arguments as to why it should be this way (a trivial increase in file size isn't convincing as set against the loss of important information). I would agree with those who have said that most EXIF data could be lost (except perhaps the most useful, such as date taken), but the IPTC data is really important.

In my other flickr incarnation as a personal user with all rights reserved on my photos, this bothers me a lot. However, as a non-profit organisation intending to use flickr to share our photos under a creative commons license, this issue is also very important to us. Although we are not retaining full rights over our images, we would still like downloaded and shared copies to retain associated information about their source and content. I am sure this is going to undermine confidence in the use of flickr among some of my colleagues - please fix it!
Patrick Costello 11 years ago
>>a trivial increase in file size

"Another problem is the metadata can be arbitrarily large. You can stick Word documents in there. Or base 64 encoded copyright infringing MP3s."
(1 to 100 of 156 replies)
Groups Beta