Hi Mia,
Thanks for posting this, very interesting to see it all in an at a glance table. Do you know if this table could be updated regularly and so could become an important reference tool or is just a one off survey?
Interesting to note that Google+ had better metadata handling than Flickr, which claims to be a 'photographers' site. Dropbox was a little quite poor, which is interesting because from a recent AHFAP JISCmail discussion (which is not a representative survey) many CH photo departments are quite keen on Dropbox as an image delivery service, myself included. I note that YouSendIt/Hightail was not surveyed.
Tony Harris
Government Art Collection/AHFAP Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mia
Sent: 27 March 2014 14:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MCG] What counts as valid attribution on licensed images?
I thought some of you might find this useful/interesting:
Social Media sites: photo metadata test results
'We have uploaded a test image with embedded metadata and have checked
if any of the embedded values are displayed and if so, which ones. As
a next step we have tried to save the picture from a Social Media web
site or system on our computer and then we checked what metadata
fields are still embedded.'
http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-results.php
Cheers, Mia
--------------------------------------------
http://openobjects.org.uk/
http://twitter.com/mia_out
I mostly use this address for list mail and don't check it daily; use
my open.ac.uk address for personal email
On 28 January 2014 15:51, James Morley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To anyone who hasn't tumed out from this thread, you might find this
> interesting - http://pro.europeana.eu/pro-blog/-/blogs/copyright-public-consultation%3A-europeana-responds-have-you
> ---
> James Morley
> www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
> www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
> www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, James Morley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Thanks Sarah, as you say, I think the reality is that the only possible way
>> for any sort of progress is nagging from all parties.
>>
>> Two specific comments though:
>>
>> - you say even those who should know are "confused about embedded
>> software". Absolutely! I have been looking at a few projects where I simply
>> wanted to do the right thing and employ best practice, but boy was it hard
>> to find anything to help me quickly and easily work out what I needed to do,
>> and how to do it.
>>
>> - "museums are wary of placing images on social media" do you mean the
>> likes of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram? I simply cannot fathom why
>> anyone would hesitate to share a screen-res image on their own accounts on
>> any of those, any more than I can understand any museum preventing visitors
>> taking photographs and sharing them. Surely we've moved on from that?
>>
>> And on a lighter note - especially since it's Friday once again ... I know
>> you and several others here have seen this, but I thought I'd share it here
>> too.
>>
>> http://culturepics.org is a hack I threw together last weekend which was
>> initially intended to be a placehold.it / placekitten.com type service, but
>> based on open access cultural heritage collections (initially about 40,000
>> images from Flickr Commons, and I'm just looking to integrate many more
>> api-accessible records from e.g. Eurapeana). It's grown provide a simple to
>> use discovery tool, and I've had a few other interesting ideas to extend it.
>> You'll be pleased to hear that the plan (not yet implemented - see above
>> about what and how!) is even if they have a CC0/PD license to embed
>> attribution and basic information into the metadata of the derivative images
>> it serves up, which in the case of Flickr images is actually sticking back
>> in what they stripped out (or from what I've seen from many of the source
>> images, adding in what the original owner never had there in the first
>> place!).
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> James Morley
>> www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
>> www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
>> www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sarah Saunders <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> I completely agree with what you;re saying and that's why the IPTC Photo
>>> Metadata Group is emphasising the role of technology and software companies
>>> in trying to solve the attribution problem. The issue though, is that most
>>> don't want to change anything unless and until their users ask for it.
>>>
>>> At IPTC our MD tried to get hold of the social media organisations when we
>>> did our survey of metadata retention (or put otherwise, stripping). We
>>> couldn't get a single response from any of the companies, so the only way
>>> forward is to make as much noise as possible outside, and publish the
>>> findings so that others can understand the issues and start to ask for
>>> metadata to be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> Here's the campaign site (set up by IPTC Photo Metadata Working group)
>>>
>>> http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/
>>>
>>> and the results of our social media metadata survey
>>>
>>> http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-results.php
>>>
>>> The cultural sector has a long way to go - even hardened picture library
>>> software companies (with a few honorable exceptions) are confused about
>>> embedded software. Many people working in heritage organisations are in hoc
>>> to their tech departments who tell them 'it can't be done' or 'it's not a
>>> priority'. Some museums are wary of placing images on social media, and so
>>> they should be. Perhaps the social media companies (I've said this before!)
>>> will listen to some very large national institutions.
>>>
>>> It's great that we are talking about it!
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Jan 2014, at 17:30, James Morley wrote:
>>>
>>> > Interesting piece. The polarised comments frustrate me though and don't
>>> > really serve to take the argument anywhere. Start saying 'thou shalt
>>> > not'
>>> > to a kid won't get you anywhere, just as citing details of outdated
>>> > copyright law aren't exactly going to encourage someone on social media
>>> > to
>>> > start thinking about the precise way in which they should use an image.
>>> >
>>> > As I said there, it strikes me that the basic problem lies in both the
>>> > nature of the medium and the technology that supports it. Combine that
>>> > with
>>> > a confused bunch of 'users' with no clear guidance on what is best
>>> > practice
>>> > or even just decent, let alone the law, and it's a recipe for the chaos
>>> > that ensues. And the sad thing is that in almost all cases no-one sets
>>> > out
>>> > to intentionally upset anyone, and if they had a helping hand they'd be
>>> > more than happy to do the correct thing (as this case shows with the
>>> > fact
>>> > that three people took the trouble to provide attribution, even though
>>> > they
>>> > got it wrong!).
>>> >
>>> > Wonderfully naive, but isn't technology part of the answer? When you
>>> > publish an image, embed copyright information. When it is saved,
>>> > modified,
>>> > shared ensure that that information persists (one of the almost
>>> > ubiquitous
>>> > failings of current social media platforms, which strip out metadata, as
>>> > we've discussed before). Then wherever it is published make sure that
>>> > that
>>> > information is readily accessible. For example on Flickr you can see a
>>> > page
>>> > of EXIF data extracted from the uploaded image (even though they strip
>>> > it
>>> > from derivatives!) and why not make a right-click option available in
>>> > every
>>> > modern web browser to view basic exif/iptc data on any image? Then that
>>> > crucial trail would not be lost at every step.
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > James Morley
>>> > www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
>>> > www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
>>> > www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
>>> > <http://www.apennypermile.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Angela Murphy
>>> > <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> A salutary tale about image attribution (with thanks to David Riecks
>>> >> and
>>> >> David Sanger) - and a reminder that links should be to the original
>>> >> copyright holder where possible
>>> >> http://www.davidsanger.com/blog/the-piano-player-of-kiev
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Angela Murphy
>>> >> Consultant
>>> >> Image Management and Rights Clearance
>>> >>
>>> >> The Image Business
>>> >> 21 Leamington Road Villas
>>> >> Notting Hill
>>> >> London W11 1HS
>>> >> Tel: +44-(0)20-77274920
>>> >> Mob: +44-(0)7973-820020
>>> >>
>>> >> email: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> http://about.me/angelamurphy
>>> >>
>>> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 09:46, James Morley wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi, a 'quick' Friday question ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you are planning to use images under a license that requires
>>> >>> attribution, but the mechanism for attribution is not specified, which
>>> >>> of the following would people deem acceptable?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - display an image on a web page and having a full citation and link
>>> >>> (ok, I think that's an obvious yes)
>>> >>> - display an image on a website with attribution in a hidden
>>> >>> "title=xyz" attribute
>>> >>> - give generic credits for images at the end of a page, or even on a
>>> >>> separate page
>>> >>> - overlay an image with a text 'watermark' attribution (but does that
>>> >>> create a derivative, which gets even more confusing!)
>>> >>> - embed all attribution details in image metadata
>>> >>>
>>> >>> One of the reasons for asking is that most of the licenses I have seen
>>> >>> seem to be focused around web usage, but what about mobile apps,
>>> >>> in-gallery interactives etc?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I appreciate that licences vary and some will specify exact
>>> >>> requirements, but I ask the question in a generic way, and perhaps
>>> >>> also thinking in the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks, James
>>> >>>
>>> >>> PS taking the most obvious example of Creative Commons, it seems that
>>> >>> they have in part addressed this with 4.0 which says "In 4.0, the
>>> >>> manner of attribution is explicitly allowed to be reasonable to the
>>> >>> means, medium, and context of how one shares a work." (source:
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Attribution_reasonable_to_means.2C_medium.2C_and_context
>>> >>> with further detail, though no real explanation, at
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart
>>> >> ).
>>> >>> But if you wanted to use a CC-BY 2.0 licensed image you'd be
>>> >>> restricted to the very first option, and should follow the guidelines
>>> >>> at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ****************************************************************
>>> >>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> >>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> >>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> >>> ****************************************************************
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ****************************************************************
>>> >> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> >> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> >> ****************************************************************
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > ****************************************************************
>>> > website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> > [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> > ****************************************************************
>>>
>>> Electric Lane
>>> Consultancy and Training in Image Archiving and DAM
>>> +44(0)7941316714
>>> +44(0)207607 1415
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> www.electriclane.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************
>>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> ****************************************************************
>>
>>
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
****************************************************************************
This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it.
All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
