In November 2008 I wrote an article that highlighted how Flickr and Facebook both strip out EXIF data in images that are uploaded. A comment to that post recently got me excited about the possibility Flickr had changed its ways and initial testing indicated it might have.

However, sadly, a year and a half later, nothing has changed. I’ve redone the tests with no luck. Flickr and Facebook are both stripping out EXIF data to uploaded images. The only exception is that I can now confirm Flickr is preserving the data on original images, just not on the automatically generated resized versions.

Below is a quick analysis of the problem and why it is a serious issue that every photographer should be worried about.

How Flickr Does It

If you upload images to Flickr, the site automatically generates up to five different versions including square, thumbnail, small, medium and large. If you are a non-pro account user, these are the only images sizes available as they can not download originals.

The original files preserve the EXIF data but the other sizes, the ones generated by Flickr. Do not. For example, compare the EXIF data stored in the two sizes of this image, the original being on the left. (Note: Original image by mikebaird and licensed under a Creative Commons License)

Since that image was from 2008, I redid the test using this image, which was uploaded this month and found the same results. (Note: Original image by dicktay2000 and licensed under a Creative Commons License)

In short, Flickr still has the same problem it did two years ago and is stripping out the metadata on images when it resizes them. Unfortunately, it resizes all images uploaded and, in the case of unpaid users, there is no way to access the originals. Furthermore, since the original images are usually too large for Web use, it is the smaller ones that get passed around the most.

Facebook Too

I also repeated the test with Facebook, using an image I took during a recent geocaching run, and compared an original from my phone to the version I downloaded from Facebook. The original is on the left.

Unfortunately, with Facebook, there is no way to download the original photo and, as such, the EXIF data is never seen publicly. All you can do is either add a visual watermark or hope that, if the image is passed around on the Web, that attribution remains intact.

Why This is Bad

With the recent near-miss in the Digital Economy Bill in Britain over orphan works, it is clear that orphan works legislation will be a part of the future of copyright.

Though there were differences between the UK bill and the two that were tried in the U.S. without success, the crux is the same. If the owner or the rightsholder of a copyrighted work can not be found or identified, the work can be used so long as the person using it performed a reasonable search.

This issue most directly impacts photographers and visual artists as their work is more difficult to search for and often has no attribution affixed to it. As such, image sharing sites, such as Flickr, should be doing everything they can to help identify the authors of the works they host, including preserving the EXIF data.

The failure to do so, especially for Flickr, which caters so strongly to professional photographers, is very dangerous and may create serious problems down the road for the users who trusted the service.

Bottom Line

While I grant that this is an invisible problem in that EXIF data is not immediately seen by those who view or use the site, it is an important one to fix. Hopefully both of these sites will work on a fix to preserve the metadata of images uploaded to them to prevent creating orphan works.

After all, the problem of orphaned works is not one that’s going to go away and the only way it can be resolved with current works is through cooperation of all involved and that includes photo sharing sites.

In the meantime though, just be aware that, when you upload your images to Flickr or Facebook, your metadata may not travel with them.

Whether you’re a professional photographer, an amateur artist or just someone who likes to post images on the Web from time to time, you probably want to make sure that others know who the image belongs to, even if you don’t mind it being copied.

The problem is that, as images are passed around, they usually get separated from identifying information. For example, once an image leaves your Flickr Account, there is nothing to identify it as yours, unless you watermark it before uploading.

However, JPEG images have long had a means of embedding invisible data into an image. This data, known as Exif, can carry an abundance of information about the image including the camera type, its settings and information about the copyright holder.

Last year, I discussed Microsoft Photo Info, a powerful and free tool for adding Exif data to images. The problem with that system is that it is still time-consuming, even with batch editing, and it is easy to forget to add the metadata before uploading.

But photographer Rikk Flohr has proposed a better solution. By making some changes to your camera, you can embed your copyright information into your photograph at the second the image is taken, no need to do anything on your computer.

It’s a simple idea, but one that will save many photographers a great deal of time and headache.

How it Works

The truth is that your camera, whether it is an expensive high-end SLR or a cheap “toy” camera, already adds a great deal of Exif data to every image it takes.

If you look at the Exif data of an unmodified image, you’ll see that the camera adds information about the camera, its settings, the date (if possible) and more. However, since the camera doesn’t known anything about its owner, it can’t add that information.

Fortunately though, as Flohr pointed out in his article, most cameras come with software and drivers to help you set up the camera. Most of those applications have the ability to to add author, copyright and other information.

That way, when the camera writes its regular Exif data to the image, it also writes the photographer information in, ensuring that it is added before the image leaves the camera. This leaves no room for human error and eliminates a step before putting the photo on the Web.

Needless to say, if you’re a photographer that enjoys putting photos on the Web, this is a step you should take immediately.

How to Do It

Unfortunately though, there is no consistent way to set this feature in all cameras as every manufacturer and every camera is slightly different.

If you have your CD that came with your camera, install the software from it and hook up your camera. From there, you should be able to edit the author information and add other details. If you don’t have the CD anymore, you can likely download the drivers from your camera manufacturer’s site.

According to Flohr, most cameras have this ability, including most inexpensive ones, but some likely will not. In those cases you will have to resort to using software-based solutions such as Microsoft Photo Info.

However, according to the comments to the blog post, Adobe Lightroom has the ability to automatically add the information upon import, making it a good choice as the process doesn’t require any human intervention.

All in all, it should only take a few minutes to set up but could easily save hours spent manually adding Exif data to images after the fact.

Caveats

As I mentioned in my previous discussions of Exif data, there are a lot of potential problems.

First, it doesn’t actually prevent or discourage copying, rather, it just helps identify the image as yours after it is distributed (you can always supplement Exif data with a visual watermark). Second, the data can be easily erased without destroying the image. Finally, you can’t use it on PNG or GIF format, only JPG.

However this particular method also comes with its own unique set of problems. For one, it only works well if one person is using the camera. If two people share a camera, they would either have to share the copyright notice or manually change it after importing it.

Second, some applications overwrite or modify this information, often times by accident. Also, uploading your images to Flickr or Facebook will result in the data being stripped out in most cases.

If you use this method for adding your name to your images, you need to be very careful of the people you allow to use your camera, the software you use to edit your images and the places you upload it to. Failure to do so can actually make things worse, not better.

Bottom Line

All things said, this by far the easiest and most reliable way to embed your name and information into your photographs. It only takes a few minutes to set up and can help protect your works when they get copied, prevent them from becoming orphan works (should the law come to pass) and generally make your images more secure.

Anyone who is serious about their images and posts them online should take this step as soon as possible if their camera will allow them.

Like most good ideas, it’s beautifully simple. It is fast, easy, free and comes with no drawbacks to the viewer. Even if one isn’t very interested in protecting their images, there’s no reason to not take this step.

To that end, many are looking visible watermarking, such as what the free Faststone Image Resizer provides, others are turning to invisible watermarking, such as Digimarc’s MyPictureMarc service. Still others, however, are getting back to basics and looking at embedding data in the file itself, using established protocols to display their personal info.

Fortunately for artists, there are programs that can easily embed copyright, descriptions, titles and other information into an image, all without altering it visually in any way and without any great demands on time or money.

In fact, Microsoft provides a great tool for editing this data and makes it available completely free to all users of Windows XP and Vista.

Introducing Microsoft Photo Info

Microsoft Photo Info is a free download and install. Once you’ve set it up, you use it by finding the images you want to add information to and right clicking on them, either individually or in a collection, and select “Photo Info”.

From there, explorer will pull up a window the proves the information that is currently in the image spread across several tabs. This information includes both the EXIF data and any IPTC data included in the file and can include a wide range of information including titles, descriptions, copyright statements and even URLs.

There are several features worth noting:

1. Collective Editing: You can edit the files individually or collectively if you selected multiple ones before hitting “Photo Info”. This is great for batching together large numbers of files.
2. Automatic Copyright: The program can automatically generate a copyright notice based upon your name and the date of the image’s creation.
3. Viewing Existing Data: Most digital cameras add a great deal of metadata to a picture before you ever see it. You can use this program to view the information stored and edit some of it.
4. Entry Recall: The program remembers your latest inputs and can call them back to make editing future images easier.
5. Support for Multiple File Types: Program edits both jpg and tiff files among others.

But while all of these features are useful and the variety of data available can and should be exploited, it is most important to edit the “Title” and the “Description” of the image as those are the ones most easily viewed by others.

Simply put, without Photo Info or a similar EXIF reader, most of the data will remain hidden. However, any Windows user, by simply clicking on the image properties, will be able to see those two elements very clearly.

With that information easily available, it will be difficult for anyone to say that the photo or image belongs to them or that they performed a reasonable search and could not find the copyright holder.

With the upcoming orphan works legislation looming, such an argument could be very important to make.

Why Do This

The reasons to mark your work using metadata are many. The most obvious is that it makes plagiarism very difficult to defend as the metadata is not likely to be changed or removed by someone just copying the image. All one has to do to prove their ownership of the work is right click the image and select “properties”.

More than that, however, it provides protection against the work becoming an orphan. The orphan works bill in 2006, which is likely be reintroduced, at least in part, would have made it so that, in the event a copyright holder could not be located after a “reasonable” search, the work could be used without permission in some circumstances.

It would seem logical, however, that any “reasonable” search would start with looking at the file itself. By embedding your copyright information into the file, you ensure that you are always identified as the copyright holder and never have your work become an orphan. Simply provide your name and some form of contact information and the work should be in good hands as the metadata is carried with it even if the file is copied.

However, the system is not perfect, there are problems with relying solely on metadata and many reasons why you should not make it your sole source of identification.

Limitations

Before you put your name and information in the EXIF data of your image, consider the following points:

• Anyone Can Change It: The same as you can use Photo Info or another EXIF editor to manipulate the metadata, so can anyone else. There is no way to “lock” a file so that no one else can make changes.
• Anyone Can Erase It: Metadata often gets erased from images, especially by programs that optimize images for the Web. Such programs often erase the data in order to save a few bytes in file size.
• Not For All File Types: Sadly, there are no such standards for PNG or GIF graphics at this time. The only Web format it works for currently is JPG.

But while these are definitely limitations to take to heart, these are not reasons to avoid using a free and easy tool to protect your work, especially when it does not negatively impact your viewers in any noticeable way.

Conclusions

With the orphan works legislation coming back from the dead and image reuse becoming more rampant, it makes sense to take a moment or two to protect your work, especially considering how much time and effort went into creating it.

Even if this system is far from perfect in its protection, it is not often that we have something that is free, easy to use and does not harm the viewer experience. Even if it only provides a small amount of protection, it makes sense to go ahead and try it.

Visual artists, especially those that post to the Web, already have a very tough time protecting their works and need all of the help they can get to make sure that they don’t lose total control of their creations.