James,
I'm sure you will know this, the EXIF data is wholly separate set of metadata to IPTC, so I assume you mean the flavours of the IPTC. Maybe you might want to participate in the IPTC working group on the revised CH metadata. Sarah Saunders, also on the MCG list would be able to offer more advice.
https://basecamp.com/2196080/projects/4785781-group-iptc-screm/
Regards
Tony Harris
Government Art Collection
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Morley
Sent: 27 March 2014 15:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MCG] What counts as valid attribution on licensed images?
Thanks Mia
It prompts me to ask another question - for my CulturePics hack mentioned previously I have been looking at a way of serving up image files with the metadata *re-inserted*. For example using derivatives from Flickr but adding in metadata attributes like title, tags, geo, ownername, source url and of course license. As that table shows, the original image on Flickr keeps the metadata from the source image, but my experience is that even with these the metadata that the owners have embedded is typically very poor. And yet after they have uploaded them they have a license set, a title, description, an owner, sometimes dates and geotags, crowdsourced tags etc, all available via the API.
So it should be simple really, but the two major barriers I've come up against are
i) knowing what is best practise - just look at that table to see how many flavours there are
ii) finding a server-based toolset that would enable me to do this programmatically.
All thoughts/suggestions welcome, even if it's just a link that should be obvious to me and I just haven't spotted it!
Cheers, James
On 27 March 2014 14:27, Mia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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_reasonabl
> e_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/
> ****************************************************************
>
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
