Hi All
The survey was done by the IPTC Photo Metadata Working Group, which I am in. I can ask this question of the group ie. how often do we aim to update the information. The problem of course is that these things change all the time. I will try to get an answer!
Sarah
On 27 Mar 2014, at 15:03, HARRIS TONY wrote:
> 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/
> ****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|