According to his blog post, he had recently reported another Flickr account containing “obviously stolen material” and feared that Flickr had accidentally deleted his account instead of the infringer. A quick email to Flickr confirmed that fear but it was then Flickr dropped a major bombshell.

Even though Flickr admitted that the account had been deleted on accident, there was nothing that they could do to restore it. Wilhelm’s account, along with years of history and over 4,000 photos, was gone. Basically, there was nothing that Flick could do beyond re-enable his username and offer him four years of “Pro” access for free.

But while many have lamented Flickr’s poor handling of this matter, going as far as to call the system broken, I know well Flickr is not alone in this problem. I routinely hear of horror stories of getting content restored on Facebook and the problem seems to be spreading to other sites.

More to the point, this Flickr debacle points to a serious limitation in the counternotice process and why filing a counter-notice in response to a false DMCA notice is absolutely no guarantee that your content will be restored. In fact, with many hosts, once content is deleted, for any reason, it never comes back, no matter how many counternotices one files.

No Returns, No Takebacks

Let’s turn this situation around and say that, instead of Flickr deleting the wrong account, someone had filed a mistaken or outright false DMCA notice against Wilhelm and, as a result, got his account deleted. Wilhelm, if he disagreed with the notice, could file a conternotice and, if he did so, nothing would happen.

Unless the process for deleting a Flickr account is different for DMCA notices vs. regular TOS complaints, Flickr would be unable to restore his account, even if they wanted.

Of course, this is allowed under the law and Wilhelm wouldn’t have much recourse in the matter. There are two reasons for this:

1. The DMCA Doesn’t Require Counternotice Compliance: The DMCA is about removing liability for the host. By complying with a DMCA notice, the host is no longer potentially liable for the alleged copyright infringement. By filing a counternotice, your host can then repost the content (after the waiting period) without fear of liability. However, nothing says they have to.
2. Terms of Service: When you sign up with a site like Flickr or Facebook you agree to a terms of service that, generally, means that they can deny you service at any time for any reason. In short, if they can’t or don’t want to restore the content, you have no legal lever to force them.

In short, considering that most hosts can simply delete your content whenever they please, you have no means to force them to put it back after a DMCA spat. This has less to do with the DMCA and more to do with the fact we are at the mercy of the companies that host our content, especially those we don’t pay money to or have any kind of two-way business relationship with.

However, as Wilhelm’s situation pointed out, even if you are a “Pro” member and have such a relationship, there’s no guarantee that it will protect you. The contracts are the same and the only lever you have is the threat of taking your business elsewhere.

All in all, not much of a threat at all.

No Easy Fixes

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to fix this. Rewriting the DMCA to force hosts to restore content would likely be a non-starter and would just result in hosts changing their terms to have customers waive that right. It also wouldn’t help situations such as Wilhelm’s where it physically impossible to get the content restored.

In some cases, you may be able to restore the content yourself but, depending on how it is uploaded, it may actually count as a separate “infringement” meaning that the DMCA filer could just refile the notice. Of course, they would be on notice that you disagreed with their assertions, possibly further opening a false DMCA notice lawsuit, but to the host it would be a separate “incident” of copyright infringement.

Really, the only thing that can be done is to find the hosts that aren’t able or willing to restore content after a DMCA notice and then avoid them. However, counternotices are so rare that only the largest companies see them regularly at all.

So, as long as hosts can do what they want with your content, counternotices will aways be a roll of the dice.

Conclusions

If you post content online, you are at the mercy of your host. If they lose your content, delete it, go out of business or if a disaster strikes, you’re out of luck. The terms you agree to upon registering unilaterally favor the host and that isn’t going to change. The only lever we have is bad publicity, as with Flickr in this case.

The good hosts, however, will have provisions in place to restore data that they delete or otherwise take down. Apparently Flickr is working on such a system though it won’t be available until later this year. As such, it’s of no use to Mr. Wilhelm.

This is always why you should assume your host, along with its content, could disappear tomorrow.

That being said, one of the great ironies in this is the reason Wilhelm’s account was deleted: He was trying to report an account with stolen material. Though I’ve never heard of a mistake like this before, I have to worry that it might discourage others from trying to do the right thing.

If Yahoo! (or any other host) is likely to delete the wrong account, it would, understandably, make people very nervous filing a report.

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.

1: Department of Justice defends constitutionality of $675,000 award against Tenenbaum

First off today, the Justice Department filed a brief in the Joel Tenenbaum case defending the jury’s $675,000 judgment against him for his admitted file sharing. Tenenbaum’s attorneys had submitted a brief challenging the constitutionality of the award and the Justice Department has now filed one in opposition to that. The plaintiffs, the record labels, have until the 24th to file their answer. The Justice Department has already filed a similar brief in the Jammie Thomas case.

2: Independent Backtracks on Flickr Copyright

Next up, the British newspaper The Independent has apologized and offered to pay £100 to a Flickr photographer who had his image used in the paper after being lifted using Flickr’s API. At first the newspaper did not understand what they had done wrong, thinking that the Flickr API allowed such use, but backtracked when they realized their error.

3: Music chopped in Spanish Salons as Radio Tax Spells Silencio

Finally today, hair salons in Spain are rebelling against a €6 and €12 for playing the radio within their shops by turning off their music and asking customers to bring their own. This follows repeated demands by a group representing artists and songwriters to pay the fee and court cases on the matter.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Flickr treads more lightly in copyright matter

First off today, after the uproar following its takedown of the Obama/Joker image, which was the result of a controversial DMCA notice, Flickr has changed their DMCA policy to replace the allegedly infringing image rather than removing the entire page. This keeps the conversation and the other elements of the page intact, but completes the requirement of the DMCA to remove the content.

Images that are the subject of DMCA takedown notices will now present a simple graphic that says, “This image has been removed due to a claim of copyright infringement”.

This is viewed by many as an improvement over the old system, however, there is still no word on whether Flickr has the ability to restore images that are taken down or if users will still be required to reupload images following a counter-notice.

2: Copyright owners sue XM Radio Canada

XM Radio Canada (Note: XM and Sirius are separate companies in Canada) is being sued by the Canadian licensing agencies for unpaid royalties. Earlier this year, the Copyright Royalty Board of Canada ruled that both XM and Sirius had to pay millions in back royalties dating to 2005. The deadline for payment was July 31, a day that came and went without payment from XM Radio Canada.

Now the CMRRA is suing XM Radio Canada to bar the company from using their work, which would likely be a death blow to the company. XM Radio Canada and its parent company, Canadian Satellite Radio Inc., have indicated that they plan to pay the royalties in 2010, though that clear was not adequate for rightsholders.

3: Roxanne’s Nonexistent Revenge

Finally today, though it’s not a copyright story per se, with the record labels playing the villains in many people’s mind when it comes to copyright, a feel-good story about former rapper Roxanne Shanté, who in 1984, when she was just 15, had a hit single with “Roxanne’s Revenge”. According to the story, which started in The Daily News, Shanté took advantage of a clause in her record contract to force her record label to pay hundreds of thousands dollars to pay for her education, which included a Ph.D from Cornell.

The problem is that it appears none if it is true. There is no evidence of any such contract, Warner Music was not even her label, she does not have a Ph.D from Cornell (or anywhere else that has been able to be located) and is not licensed to practice psychology or any related field (her supposed new profession).

It appears that the story is pretty much false and Shanté has not denied any of the allegations, just saying that “What he’s trying to do is trying to get himself known, to get the popular sites to read after him. This is not a $5 billion Ponzi scheme. What would make someone go so hard and heavy at that?”

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Isohunt judge says MPAA has yet to prove direct infringment

First off today, it has been a rough year for bittorrent trackers all over the world, but one site, Isohunt, may have scored a small legal win. The judge in their case against the MPAA, which is suing them for copyright infringement, has said that the movie studios have not proved direct infringement. According to the judge “United States copyright laws do not reach acts of infringement that take place entirely abroad,” and this has proved a difficult issue for the movie studios when dealing with the Canadian bittorrent tracker.

The MPAA has until September 15 to file a brief proving the infringement and, if it is unable to, the matter will be sent before a trial, possibly a jury. If that happens, it would be the first time that a bittorrent tracker made it to a jury trial in the U.S.

2: Who is Edward Przydzial and Did He Issue a DMCA Takedown Notice Over the Joker/Obama Image to Flickr?

Next up today, photographer Thomas Hawk has been doing research into the Obama image controversy at Flickr. To recap, Flickr took down a controversial image of Barack Obama photoshopped to look like the Joker from The Dark Knight, creating accusations of censorship. However, Flickr countered saying that they had received a DMCA takedown notice over the image.

Hawk managed to obtain the name of the person who filed the takedown, listed as Edward Przydzia in the notice, but found that the name produced zero search results and no one seemed to have that name. However, when he added an “l” to the end of the last name, he found Edward Przydzial, a photographer who has made claims to having created that particular work (the editing portion at least) and has a version of it on his LiveJournal account dated before the Flickr photo.

However, it is unclear if Przydzial is admitting or denying the filing of the takedown notice. After being asked by Hawk if he had filed the notice, he simply said that Flickr would “need a court order” to reveal the identity of the filers. I can say that is not true, I’ve had many I’ve filed against obtain my personal information, including notices sent to Google. Hawk has now said that he is done with this for now.

3: EU’s Reding backs Google in online books row

Finally today, it’s been a tough time for the Google Book Search deal. A DOJ investigation here at home, major companies aligning against it, including MIcrosoft, Yahoo! and Amazon and writers all over the world protesting the book scanning and indexing process.

However, today it gets a little bit of support. The European Union’s media commissioner, Viviane Reding, has come out in favor of the service and said she hopes to see similar corporate projects in the EU to pick up the slack that government has left behind in digitizing books. This comes ahead of an EU Commission hearing in September about the project and proposed settlement here in the U.S., that followed complaints from Germany about the project.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

It is Monday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It was a busy week for copyright news with tons of great stories including a receont controversy at Flickr, updates on the potential sale of The Pirate Bay and a new study from the EU that paints a very bleak picture of the future of content industries.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• Flickr Removes Obama Photo, Creates Controversy
• The Future of the Pirate Bay is Spelled Out
• Yahoo! Gets a Win on Royalties
• China Puts “Tomato Garden XP” Pirates in Jail
• The “RIAA Approved” Tenenbaum Mixtape
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

1: Coalition to challenge Google Books settlement

First off, opposition to the Google Book Search settlement continues to grow but now we’re seeing not just authors in other countries, but heavy hitters right here at home. Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo are joining up with the Internet Archive and several library associations to oppose the settlement. All of this is taking place under the co-helm of antitrust lawyer Gary Reback. This is according to Peter Brantley, the Internet Archive’s director.

The settlement, which is between Google and the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers, allows Google to scan and display portions of in copyright but out of print books. In return authors and publishers get paid a small amount for each book scanned as well as receiving ad revenue and royalties from sales.

Opposition to the deal has been growing since it was announced, largely from authors, domestic and foreign, unhappy with the deal and competitors, such as the Internet Archive, who fear they will be unfairly shut out of the book scanning business.

2: Flickr v. Free Speech. Where Is Their Courage?

Next up today, we have some updates on the Flick/Obama photo controversy but it doesn’t seem to be doing much quell the uproar.

Flickr has confirmed in a forum comment that they received a DMCA takedown notice over the image, which pictured Obama with photoshopped face paint to make him look like Heath Ledger’s Joker, but did not say from who. There are several potential parties who could have sent such a notice, including the person who created the Photoshop work itself, which was reportedly done for a Photoshop tutorial and not a political statement, though it later came to be used as such.

However, as the article points out, Flickr went above and beyond in removing the work here, including deleting the page the work was featured on, along with its comments. A lot of material not in dispute was lost for this reason. The Flickr account holder, according to Flickr, is free to file a counter-notice and have the work restored. This seems likely as there would be a strong fair use argument for the photograph, especially if the rightsholders to the original image were the ones filing.

Despite this, many have said that Flickr should have stood by its user on this one, keeping the image up given the fair use issues and have accused Flickr of wanting to remove the image, as they have allegedly done with other anti-Obama accounts.

3: China Jails, Fines Distributors of Pirated Software

Finally today, Microsoft is hailing a piracy conviction in China. Hong Lei and Sun Xianzhong, founders of Chengdu Gongruan Network Technology Co. and two others were fined 11 million Yuan and sentenced to two and a half years in prison for pirating software, including Microsoft Windows, which was repackaged for free as “Tomato Garden Windows XP”.

China, though now the second largest PC market by shipments, has been a tough market for Microsoft and others to break into. Microsoft, according to the article, has already tried to lure in would-be pirates with steep price cuts, up to 70% off in some cases, but the underground market still thrives in the country.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: How The Pirate Bay Will Be Legalized

First off today, Global Gaming Factory has offered up some clues about how it will go legit. In a letter to shareholders, which it is hoping will encourage them to approve the deal, they explained that they plan to set up The Pirate Bay as a pay site. Copyright holders will have a veto power and can demand removal of content but, if they permit it to be used on the service, they will be paid every time it is downloaded.

According to GGF, which plans to buy the legally troubled site later this month, it has worked closely with those in the content industry to avoid the problem of mass removals and feels confident that there will be enough content there to make it worth the while. However, most still feel the chances of success for the new site are low as other services, when turned legit, typically have not fared well.

2: NZ authors protest Google book plan

Next up today, the list of international author groups upset about the Google Book Search settlement seems to be growing.

New Zealand authors have come out in opposition of the settlement, which would allow Google to scan out of print books for inclusion in its database. Author Lynley Hood, along with the New Zealand Society of Authors has pentitioned the government to inquire into the settlement and ensure that there is no violation of the Berne Convention or New Zealand copyright holder’s rights.

They expressed concern that the deal would not benefit local authors, especially since the local industry seemed to be ignoring the deal and time to participate or refuse was running out, and that even local citizens would not benefit as the books would not be available to them as the tool is limited only to U.S. residents.

A society of Authors representative said that doing nothing is the worst thing possible as you will lose your chance to sue and not receive any funds for your work being scanned.

3: Censorship or Copyright Infringement? Flickr Takes Down “Obama as Joker” Photo

Finally today, Flickr is in the midst of a copyright and censorship controversy as it has removed a now-famous image of Barack Obama painted to look like the Joker from “The Dark Knight”. Flickr said that it removed the image due to “Copyright infringement concerns” but does not mention a specific DMCA notice or who filed the complaint.

This has led to accusations that Flickr has removed the image on political grounds, not copyright ones. This wouldn’t be the first time that they were accused of this, the previous coming from an incident where they were accused of deleting an account critical of Obama.

Though the image itself was not intended to have political implications, it was a Photoshop demo, it has become a poster image for those politically opposed to Obama.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

During my talk at WordCamp Dallas, which should be up on this site later this week, I discussed ways to locate free and legal content for your site. During this talk, I highlighted some of the better ways to get images for your blog posts, including Photo Dropper and Zemanta (though the latter doesn’t fully complete the CC license).

However, for those who either don’t have WordPress or just want an easy way to copy and paste HTML code for an image, JazzBiscuit’s Creative Commons Image Search may be just the tool you’re looking for. Though it is an older tool, having been around well over a year, it makes it amazingly easy to find images on Flickr and embed them into your site, complete with all of citation needed to fulfill the CC license.

This can be especially useful if you have a Dynamic site, are looking for images to go along with an article submitted elsewhere or just want to do a quick search to see what is available, without installing a plugin.

However, it isn’t a perfect system and users should be wary before relying upon it too heavily.

How it Works

Photo owned by modomatic (cc)

The way the system works is pretty basic overall. When you visit the site, you are prompted to select an image size, either small, medium or large, and then enter the term you’re looking for. After a few seconds you’ll see a series of thumbnails of relevant images on Flickr, clicking one of them pulls the image up in full size, meaning the size you chose, and provides the source code you need to put the image on your site.

You can see a sample of a small image to the right.

It is important to choose the size of the image you want before performing your search. Also, bear in mind that medium and large images are probably too big for a blog post, making small the only practical size for most sites.

All in all, the system does its job fairly well, though there are a few limitations to bear in mind.

Limitations and Concerns

The astute will have already noticed that the application does not ask you if you are using the image for a commercial or non-commercial use. Though this might seem to be a legal issue, the site only produces images that are under the CC-BY license. This means that the images can be used for any purpose (provided attribution and other terms are met) but it also means the service misses images under other CC licenses.

For example, if you run a non-commercial site, you can use any of the CC licenses for this purpose. However, this application will only find images licensed under the least restrictive, and least common, terms.

Also, though the page says it was updated in March allow users to flush images left or right, no such command seems to exist on the site. As such, you’ll likely have to wrap the image in a table or div to ensure that it is positioned correctly, meaning that there is still some coding left to do. Though Photo Dropper has this issue as well, it allows you to set it up only once and have it be consistent in the future.

The biggest problem, however, is that I am late to this party. The site that this is an offshoot of has been inactive since August, 2008 and the page is being kept alive solely for the benefit of those who use it. Outside of the reported March update, which doesn’t seem to be working, not much has been done with it. Though it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the tool, it makes me less than certain about its future.

Bottom Line

Personally, I prefer Photo Dropper strongly to this image search tool. Photo Dropper is easier to use, finds more images and is better integrated with WordPress, my blogging platform of choice. However, I can see a lot of potential in a Web-based tool like this one and, with a few simple improvements, it really could be a viable tool for those who either want a non-plugin solution or don’t use WordPress.

As it is now, it is simply too limited and its future is too uncertain for me to highly recommend it. If you need it and it can provide you the images you want, by all means use it. But as it sits right now, as far as I can see, it is about 80% of a really great project.

Unfortunately though, if the author’s abandonment of the main site it seems like that may not happen.

Still, it would be an interesting project for someone who were interested in this issue to take up.

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.