JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for AHFAP Archives


AHFAP Archives

AHFAP Archives


AHFAP@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AHFAP Home

AHFAP Home

AHFAP  March 2014

AHFAP March 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Social Media and image metadata handling/mis-handling

From:

HARRIS TONY <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

AHFAP, for image professionals in the UK cultural heritage sector" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:56:23 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

This will be of interest to those that work with social media or have colleagues that do. Interesting to note that Google+ had better metadata handling than Flickr and that Dropbox was possibly quite poor. But it should be noted that the survey was from the middle of last year so could now be out of date.

Tony Harris
Government Art Collection

------------------------------------------------

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_reas
>>> >> onable_to_means.2C_medium.2C_and_context
>>> >>> with further detail, though no real explanation, at
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Detailed_attribu
>>> >> tion_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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager