Share
(101 to 156 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:
yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/4...
2
(101 to 156 of 156 replies)
andyscamera 11 years ago
Well, it could be implemented with reasonable limits. Flickr's pretty good at choosing reasonable limits.
scintillating lake [deleted] 11 years ago
Whether resized images retain metadata should be dependent on whether the owner has chosen to expose that metadata. It'd be pointless to have an option "hide EXIF data" if one can simply download the image and view the data that way.
Wil C. Fry 11 years ago
But the "hide EXIF data" is a toggle switch. You can turn it on or off any time.

If this was tied to EXIF being in smaller file sizes, then every time you toggled that switch, would you expect Flickr to go back through all your images and remove/add EXIF? I couldn't see how that would be worth their time.
Walwyn 11 years ago
I've been meaning to say but in recent times, and I'm not sure when exactly but if you have added IPTC data to your images (author, cred, url, copyright notice) then these are all now saved with the photo. So the EXIF is still stripped but the IPTC data isn't I can live with that quite nicely.

Hip, Hip, Hooray.
andyscamera 11 years ago
I'm not sure where you're seeing that. I just downloaded the medium size of a photo I uploaded yesterday, and it didn't have the IPTC data. The slightly larger original image I uploaded did still have that data.
Walwyn 11 years ago
andyscamera

Seems to be on images uploaded after mid June last year.

Try saving one of my later ones. Exifer is showing the IPTC data.
Walwyn 11 years ago
It may be that they are only saving a limited set of data. If you look at my "my properties" you'll see:

Credit: walwyn
Copyright Notice: Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en_GB
Writer- Editor: walwyn
URL:
aHR0cDovL3Byb2Zlc3Nvci1tb3JpYXJ0eS5jb20A

Your IPTC data seems to be using different fields. BTW the URL seems to be obfuscated on the flickr page probably to prevent spamming but gets written out correctly.
andyscamera 11 years ago
Interesting. I can't explain it, unless it has something to do with my images being ARR and yours being CC licensed.
CIMMYT 11 years ago
Some clarification from flickr staff as to which data are retained and under what circumstances would be fantastic here... ?
anksfoto Posted 10 years ago. Edited by anksfoto (member) 10 years ago
OK, can we refresh this topic? My pics are continuously getting posted by people on Tumblrs and Soups etc without reference to my Flickr account - and I mean the smaller versions which are easy to copy despite blocking such activity with scripts. Discarding EXIF data and not leaving even my copyright notice denies my legal right to authorship - to be recognized as the author of pics on my Flickr account. Account on which in settings I chose to keep all copyrights. Account to which I send my photos *with* EXIF data and which data I would like to be kept.
Patrick Costello 10 years ago
>Discarding EXIF data and not leaving even my copyright notice denies my legal right to authorship

No it doesn't.
Wil C. Fry 10 years ago
anksfoto

Currently, Flickr *does* maintain the copyright information in the smaller sizes.

In fact, all the IPTC fields appear intact in the 500-pixel and 640-pixel and 1024-pixel versions -- the three most commonly copied sizes.
andyscamera 10 years ago
Curious. I can use Preview* to view the EXIF and IPTC in one of my original files (created by Lightroom), but it doesn't display that metadata for one of the 500 pixel images from Flickr. But if I open the 500 pixel image in a text editor, I can see that the metadata is there.

Perhaps Flickr stores the data in a format that makes it more difficult for some viewers to display.

* Preview is the default Mac image-file-viewing application.
Sean Waite 10 years ago
Storing all of the exif in the photo might be crazy, but the copyright, certainly! I'd also like to see basic info retained, such as focal length, shutter speed, ISO, f-stop, maybe if the flash fired, and perhaps a couple other things.
Wil C. Fry 10 years ago
Shaggy Wolf

It *is* currently maintained in the smaller files. At least some of them.

This may be a question for the Help Forum, but I'm not sure how Flickr decides which images maintain this information.

I just tested on Shaggy Wolf's latest upload. The smaller sizes do *not* have any EXIF or IPTC information, though the original file does.

However, on *my* latest upload (and any other of my images that I tested), if I download the Flickr-generated smaller sizes (500, 640, 1024), all that information in maintained in the file, including IPTC and XMP fields. This includes shutter speed, ISO, aperture, as well as copyright information.

andyscamera:

I can also see this information embedded in your latest upload ("Morning at the Lake") when I downloaded the 640 size.

(I'm using GUI for EXIFTool.)
Wil C. Fry 10 years ago
Please ignore my previous post.

Staff has clarified that they were not intending to implement this feature.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157627864674333/7215762...

Emily (staff) said it was actually a "bug" that metadata wasn't stripped from photos, and that staff intends to start stripping it again.

:-(
GrfxDziner 10 years ago
Wow, this stuff is going in all the wrong direction. Too bad. Wish staff would fix the tag bug first, 'coz that one is really a drag.
Wil C. Fry 10 years ago
GrfxDziner

I agree, at least on this point.

It was pretty disappointing to me. For a few months now, I'd been assuming staff had listened to our requests, when instead they'd just made a mistake.

And even more disappointing that they didn't leave the "bug" in place, since this bug was actually doing what we've been requesting... :-(
RubyMae 10 years ago
boo flickr.
GrfxDziner 10 years ago
ya, they seem to be playing for another team. Makes no sense to fix that even if it was a bug. I was equally pleased to see it included on my photos....and equally discouraged it will be no longer.
MOD
Lú_ 10 years ago
*sigh*
Gary Allman 9 years ago
I thought I'd bump this topic again.

All pictures I upload contain copyright statements in the EXIF data, and I am appalled that this isn't included in the smaller copies that Flickr makes publicly available.

I was stunned to discover that the embedded copyright data isn't made available in all image sizes. I would prefer it to be visible regardless of the hide EXIF data settings - as I don't want geo-location data public but I do want the copyright statement to be embedded in all copies of my pictures.

I am now considering making my entire stream Friends/family only, because I am tired of finding my pictures on Tumblr etc with no accreditation. ..
Wil C. Fry 9 years ago
I am now considering making my entire stream Friends/family only, because I am tired of finding my pictures on Tumblr etc with no accreditation. ..

That's always an option, of course... :-/

Take note that some sites (Tumblr, for example) actually makes a new copy of your image, completely processing it yet again. Even if Flickr retained EXIF/IPCT/XMP info in the smaller sizes, there's no guarantee that Tumblr would retain that information when it re-processes the image.

However, I really can't think of a good reason why Flickr would take an extra step in their size-generation software to remove the metadata. If they use the "saving server space" excuse, it doesn't hold a lot of water, since metadata is usually a very small percentage of the overall image size.
robust stream [deleted] Posted 9 years ago. Edited by robust stream (member) 9 years ago
Having just joined and therefore just noticed this issue (Thanks to Wil C. Fry for pointing me to this discussion) I have to add my support for this request. Whether you are an amateur or pro photographer willing to share their work, as a bare minimum copyright should be retained in all versions of a photograph.

I would say that this should go a stage further by developer software implementing methods where meta data simply can never be stripped from a photograph.
Wil C. Fry 9 years ago
as a bare minimum copyright should be retained in all versions of a photograph.

Yes.

by developer software implementing methods where meta data simply can never be stripped from a photograph.

That, I don't think is possible. Digital pictures, after all, are just files on a computer -- collections of ones and zeroes -- that will always be able to be edited.

But I (still) can't think of a good reason why Flickr is removing this information on purpose. ;-)
Wil C. Fry 9 years ago
More support for this idea in the Help Forum:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157630441456728/
czahller 9 years ago
Until Flickr implement this feature, watermarking your image is the only way to ensure copyright notices stay in place -- unless the image gets cropped :-(
andyscamera 8 years ago
Flickr gets poor marks in this study of the retention of photo metadata on social media sites.

"Study exposes social media sites that delete photographs' metadata"

www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/22...
Wil C. Fry 8 years ago
andyscamera

Thanks for the link. This is still one of my biggest pet peeves with Flickr, though it's not nearly big enough to get me to switch to the confusing mess that's Google+.

It seems like they're actually going through extra effort to remove this data, including fixing the "bug" that quit removing it some time ago.
Dorsetdunk 8 years ago
in light of the orphaned image bill that UK parliament are trying to push through under protest from the rest of the world ,there is now discussions to make stripping EXIF a criminal offence

IMO flickr is already infringing on copyright by removing the data on smaller images
I think its time flickr was taken to task over this via the help forum and we threaten to sue as a community

I suspect there are many ,many users that are unaware of this issue
and it should be posted to every group discussion and a text statement via all our streams in support

we may not see eye to eye on many of the more trivial issues here on FI and it seems to me make very little headway if any, to get any important problem solving ideas implemented

is it not about time we took a stand on an issue of this importance
and brought it to the attention of a wider audience beyond FI ?
RubyMae 8 years ago
Honestly, I don't think posting about it on flickr will make must difference. If the blogosphere and mainstream media take interest, then flickr might feel some pressure.
Wil C. Fry 8 years ago
Dorsetdunk
"...there is now discussions to make stripping EXIF a criminal offence..."

Depending on how the law is written, I seriously doubt that would affect what Flickr's doing. My understanding of that legal attempt is to prevent a copyright-violator from removing the metadata. In this case, we've given permission for Flickr to manipulate and display our images in several ways.

(And please, someone call me naive, but I was hoping Flickr/Yahoo! would make the change here based on ethical grounds, rather than because of any legal or media pressure. Wouldn't it be nice if they just did it because it's the right thing to do?)
Dorsetdunk 8 years ago
Wil C. Fry:
we've given permission for Flickr to manipulate and display our images in several ways.

yes to resize etc,but where did it state i gave permission to strip copyright information ?

but I was hoping Flickr/Yahoo! would make the change here based on ethical grounds, rather than because of any legal or media pressure.


i hope flickr is taking note of what your saying Wil surly that's the sensible solution rather than to receive damaging publicity which it not good for them or the community
Wil C. Fry 8 years ago
Dorsetdunk
"where did it state i gave permission to strip copyright information"

Just to clarify, I don't think it says that. However, I was simply referring to the law you mentioned. I'm fairly certain that law would apply to people who copy images without permission (and not to companies where we willingly upload our images for display on their sites). -- I am not a lawyer, but that's what it looks like to me.
Dorsetdunk 8 years ago
Wil C. Fry:
I'm fairly certain that law would apply to people who copy images without permission (and not to companies where we willingly upload our images for display on their sites)


no lawyer either
but surly if the law is passed it would have to apply to both services and individuals

a huge section of the community would not have signed up here in the first place and certainly none in the future if they are aware of the stripping of EXIF flying in the face of changing laws

just to note this is now being discussed in HF www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633001420554/ a poor title but if its bumped enough those that are not aware of this will get involved and flickr will have to respond
Яick Harris 8 years ago
a huge section of the community would not have signed up here in the first place and certainly none in the future if they are aware of the stripping of EXIF flying in the face of changing laws

What are you basing this on? I would think a large section of flickr users know nothing about EXIF, IPTC, metadata or even tagging. As flickr staff have pointed out, the majority of flickr users are simply exchanging snapshots and are not concerned about copyright.
ColleenM 8 years ago
Dorsetdunk:
if the law is passed it would have to apply to both services and individuals


I'm sure there would be a different set of regulations for services versus individuals. Current copyright law has Safe Harbor provisions that protect services even if their members are found to have violated copyright.
harishankar 8 years ago
+1

Adding my vote to this as well.

Please retain copyright and other information for all sizes of the photos.
Dorsetdunk Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Dorsetdunk (member) 8 years ago
Яick Harris:
What are you basing this on? I would think a large section of flickr users know nothing about EXIF, IPTC, metadata or even tagging. As flickr staff have pointed out, the majority of flickr users are simply exchanging snapshots and are not concerned about copyright.

i think the shoebox argument is old hat now, does flickr view every stream to see what content is uploaded or because iphones are top of list assume users are only taking snapshots

and it is beside the point all images snapshots or otherwise should retain the copyright exif


ColleenM:
'm sure there would be a different set of regulations for services versus individuals. Current copyright law has Safe Harbor provisions that protect services even if their members are found to have violated copyright.


so if the laws change an individual stripping EXIF would be classed as a criminal but services would act as legal gangsters, that i can well believe

the media have already slated facebook/instagram and before that google for trying to claim on copyrighted images ,is flickr now preparing to try the same in the future ?

flickr should at least retain ownership and copyright details even if they continue to strip the rest and have not seen a valid reason here to why they can not do so
unless of course they do have underhand plans for the future
ColleenM 8 years ago
Dorsetdunk:
would be classed as a criminal


No, violations of copyright are not criminal cases. They are civil cases. That's why the police won't arrest copyright violators. It's not a crime.

That's also why you have to do all your own enforcement. It's not a crime, and the public prosecutors won't get involved.
Dorsetdunk 8 years ago
ColleenM:
as i mentioned earlier there are now discussions to make stripping EXIF a criminal offence in light of the proposed orphaned image bill
MOD
Lú_ 8 years ago
Just want to add a note here that this is UK law that's changing. For photographers with images available or usable in the UK, the presence of metadata may become a much more pressing concern.
Dorsetdunk Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Dorsetdunk (member) 8 years ago
Lú_:
no EXIF means you cant trace where the image originated from so
it will effect photographers worldwide not just the UK that's why other countries are protesting strongly against the proposed change of law
Walwyn 8 years ago
I've not posted anything on flickr since discovering that even the small copyright notice and author name from the ITPC (they used to leave that in). So I've posted nothing here so far this year. I probably will again but at smaller sizes. Currently I'm rehosting images and removing links to flickr. I've so far removed about 500 links or more.
www.toddklassy.com 8 years ago
See how Flickr compares to other photo sharing sites on the Internet. Frankly, none do too well, but Flickr should be the standard bearer. Click on the link at the bottom of the page for the results:

www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-procedure.php
Walwyn 8 years ago
Todd Klassy:
Flickr should be the standard bearer.


As it is it seems to be amongst the worst.
steadfast vacation [deleted] 8 years ago
Given that the UK has passed the law allowing free use of "orphaned work", I'm faced with the prospect of deleting my Flickr images and moving on to a site that honors my ownership information on EVERY copy of my image that they create on their site.

I do hope that Flickr takes this infringement into the rights of the photographers on their site seriously. There's now a hole in the fabric of our rights and it's only going to get bigger. I refuse to support any site that continues to compromise the rights I have left. Flickr needs to respond to this in a positive way, and do it quickly.
tim ellis 8 years ago
... and retroactively too (so that the metadata is restored to the existing versions)
www.toddklassy.com 8 years ago
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act recently passed in the United Kingdom provides a way for people to legally use images found on the Internet when the copyright owner cannot be identified or contacted. Such images are known as “orphaned works.” It is not entirely clear, but the act may also make it possible to use images found in printed products if contact information for the owner cannot be easily found.

As such, I implore Flickr to stop stripping EXIF data from photographs. If there was ever a need to ensure our contact information stayed with our images this was it.
Jef Poskanzer 8 years ago
I think the worries about that Act are fairly overblown, but I guess no one knows for sure yet how it will end up being used. Copying EXIF when resizing is good idea for lots of other reasons. I do it on my own photo site using a little Unix tool I wrote myself:

acme.com/software/copy_exif/

If flickr wants to use or adapt that code, the copyright is permissive.
minxlj 8 years ago
Agreeing with others - although we don't know the full effects of the UK legislation, we will certainly have to deal with Orphan Works laws in some capacity, and so it SHOULD as a matter of importance be made clear who the owner is on every copy of their photo. Especially when we are paying for Flickr as a service.

I saw an interesting comparison chart on Peta Pixel which shows that Google + retain the info of images, so surely Flickr should be following their lead. I don't want to have to leave here after years as a customer but I need to know mine and others' images are looked after :(
Alice Mutasa at PlacesandSeasons Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Alice Mutasa at PlacesandSeasons (member) 8 years ago
I had already started a new topic on this before seeing this discussion. I agree 100% with everyone here who says that metadata that identifies the copyright owner of the image is absolutely NON-NEGIOTIABLE. There is a huge difference between simple copyright information - photographer name etc - which does NOT take up a lot of space - and other information such as camera lens used etc.

It is not a question of we 'would like' this; it's our right to have our copyright on our work. To remove it shows a blatant disregard and disrespect for copyright laws and the rights of Flickr customers who post our photos online in good faith. It is quite simply an invitation to steal photos.

There seems to be some confusion in previous posts; but I can assure you that it is removed totally from all of my low-res (72dpi) images. The fact that it appears to be removed only from lower resolution images is not going to make me upload high-res images - no WAY do I want my high-res images on the web for anyone to take and use without my permission.
This is the research that compares the extent to which websites strip out metadata:
link text
This invitation to use my photos without permission or showing my copyright has stopped me from uploading any more images to Flickr, and I am now considering closing my account altogether.
www.toddklassy.com 8 years ago
Yahoo! and Flickr do not want to protect photographer's rights, they want to weaken them. Heck, they don't even believe in professional photography. The more large photographs loaded onto Flickr and the fewer rights to protect photographers the more photos they can use for free in their cadre of new apps and online products (see the Yahoo! Weather app).

Flickr has become death, destroyer of photographer rights.
MOD
Lú_ 8 years ago
Todd Klassy:

This is not the Bash-Yahoo/Flickr Group. Constructive criticism is welcome; rants are not.
MOD
ernstkers 8 years ago
MOD
ernstkers 7 years ago
2
(101 to 156 of 156 replies)
Groups Beta