[clackers]

Did you hear about the scientist who successfully made an exact copy of himself? Unfortunately it was very foul mouthed and crude. The scientist grew tired, and finally pushed it off a cliff. He was later arrested for making an obscene clone fall.

And then there's the cheating accusation at a school ...

Teacher: "You copied from Tim's exam paper didn't you?"
Pupil: "How did you know?"
Teacher: "Tim's paper says 'I don't know', and you put 'Me neither'!"

Perhaps you've heard of images being hijacked and used by someone else without permission or payment. I went to a workshop on night photography run by an international sports photographer, who said he paid two companies annually to use software to find his images being reused illegally.

You've seen people putting 'watermarks' over their image. But whether you do this or not, you can embed copyright in the EXIF metadata - that's data in a picture that's not visible - of all your images. The metadata is viewable in software, or if uploaded to a site like Online Exif Viewer

The Setup menu has this option - the picture below is from the K-S2 as an example. You can enter the photographer's name and the copyright holder's too, if that's different for some legal reason - this could be when you're subcontracting to a company, for example. But I think it would be more useful to put a contact email address there.

To get round this strategy, a pirate would have to remove the EXIF data in software, or instead use a reduced pixel screenshot of your real picture. Both are deliberate actions and undermine their usual defence - that the misuse was accidental, and that they didn't know who to approach for permission.

To end with,

I was reading a "People Who Passed Away In 2020" article and saw that Larry Tesler, one of the co-developers of the basic copy and paste function for computers, died in February.

I was reading one of those "People Who Passed Away In 2020" articles and saw that Larry Tesler, one of the co-developers of the basic copy and paste function for computers, died in February.

I was reading one of those "People Who Passed Away In 2020" articles and saw that Larry Tesler, one of the co-developers of the basic copy and paste function for computers, died in February.

The rest of the series here: Clackers' Beginners Tips (Collected) - PentaxForums.com

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by clackers; 04-14-2022 at 09:24 PM.

[AstroDave]

I don't know whether to groan or laugh at your jokes! Keep 'em coming - they are not t-o-o-o-o bad!

The obscene clone fall is the best/worst so far.

[ramseybuckeye]

There really hasn't been a comedian to fill Rodney Dangerfield's shoes. I think we may have found him.

And your tip should be the first thing you do when getting a new camera.

[Mooncatt]

Something else to be mindful of is a lot of sites strip the EXIF data from any photo uploaded, rendering this method of copyright "signing" almost moot. I still agree with doing it and have my camera set up this way, but it's not a silver bullet.

[clickclick]

I needed the intro. One of those days. Thanks

Quite awhile back, I came across this website, and found it had some good info. It is oriented towards the U.S., but I think it's still worth checking out for others.

https://copyrightalliance.org/education/faqs/

[luftfluss]

Clackers' (sometimes twisted) dad jokes always get me...

[clackers]

Something else to be mindful of is a lot of sites strip the EXIF data from any photo uploaded, rendering this method of copyright "signing" almost moot. I still agree with doing it and have my camera set up this way, but it's not a silver bullet.

Apparently, Facebook strips most EXIF but leaves these fields intact.

The sports photographer paid two companies to basically do web crawling for his pictures being copied, with recognition software. In his case, he found most breaches were due to quite lazy junior employees or outsourced web content providers. Sometimes, the pics were placeholders in drafts having the right vibe, to be replaced by real commissioned or purchased photos in a final version, but that never happened.

---

Last edited by clackers; 02-24-2022 at 10:09 PM.

[Mooncatt]

Apparently, Facebook strips most EXIF but leaves these fields intact.

That's good to know, though still wouldn't matter a ton regardless of which site it is. I upload at a much smaller resolution. Not only to avoid compression artifacts at the site level, but having the full size image on my personal drive can be used to demonstrate ownership as well.

[clackers]

That's good to know, though still wouldn't matter a ton regardless of which site it is. I upload at a much smaller resolution. Not only to avoid compression artifacts at the site level, but having the full size image on my personal drive can be used to demonstrate ownership as well.

Yeah, the main thing is that for the future, for any legal dispute, you have the original, you can be asked to show it, and they wherever they got it from. The experience of the guy running the workshop was that he'd never been to court, the other parties had always settled.

[35mmfilmfan]

Not only having the full sized image saved, but also retaining the original media card, might be handy. I always keep mine, rather than re-using them - not that anyone is likely to want any of my images, except as a 'How not to do it' example.

[kypfer]

Load a pic into Photoshop v5.5 and simply re-save it … no more EXIF … simples
IrfanView also gives the opportunity to not save EXIF when copying.
You could then or alternatively, if so inclined, generate new EXIF using EXIFTools to imply that the image was taken at an earlier date by a different photographer and use this data to counter any claim from the original photographer.
This could get expensive!
EXIF data can be very useful for organising and cataloguing pictures, but don't hope to rely on it for any sort of copyright claim.

[BigMackCam]

Another excellent beginner's tip that probably isn't just for beginners, Ian... and I do love the humour

It's definitely worth adding copyright info to your photos if you're concerned about proof of ownership - but caution is also advised for those who, for various reasons, have privacy concerns and strive for a degree of anonymity online...

Many folks are OK divulging their first names and approximate location (city, county, country etc.) in online communities, but aren't comfortable exposing their last name or more precise location. Some don't want to expose any information whatsoever that identifies or locates them. Photos with copyright EXIF data provide others with the photographer's name... and if the camera has GPS capability, it was enabled, and the shots were taken at home (or work), they give a fairly precise location - certainly close enough to narrow down the search for someone who wants to find you (and/or your valuables).

It's not a serious concern for the vast majority of us, but definitely something to be aware of...

[Michail_P]

Useful tip. I have entered my copyright information from the start. It’s a right thing to do. There are various ways of avoiding trouble and paying for any photo, but it is a matter of ethics and professional character, at the end.

[crazy4oldcars]

I need to update my copyright data to this year. I've been too busy to pull my camera out, so far.
I include my first and last name, as well as a ...tertiary free email address.
Once upon a time, yahoo would let you create "disposable" email addresses that you could use and then delete. I kept one of those to use for places I didn't feel safe, spam wise, using one of my primary addresses. (Freebies and giveaways, you perverts ) It eventually forwards to my primary, after the junk mail is filtered out.

[clickclick]

I've gone to look at exif information many times, because I wanted to see information about exposure etc., and it always seems to be gone - no exif data at all. I've wondered if there's a strategy that says wipe it all, and in the case of a dispute, you can prove ownership by providing an original which has all of the extensive information present? Does anyone have thoughts on this? Then I wonder if a hybrid approach where you only have copyright information and nothing else would be good. Of course, on the photos I've posted on PF, I've had it all, so that anyone who was interested in things like exposure could see it.