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to a kid won't get you anywhere, just as citing details of outdated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/
****************************************************************