Other metadata in an Alamy file

[Richard Baker 756]

Here's my latest sale:

 

Start: 19 August 2016
End: 19 August 2021
Life of display, includes archival rights in perpetuity.

 

Here's something I should know already but don't: Apart from the obvious captions/descriptions/keywords, how much of one's contact and copyright detail remains in a downloaded file - and therefore, what of our original metadata is retained in the file that a buyer wishes to retain in perpetuity?

 

I'm guessing all.

 

I don't have any selfish agenda here but just wondering out loud.

 

Richard.

[Martin P Wilson 1,378]

Here's my latest sale:

 

Start: 19 August 2016

End: 19 August 2021

Life of display, includes archival rights in perpetuity.

 

Here's something I should know already but don't: Apart from the obvious captions/descriptions/keywords, how much of one's contact and copyright detail remains in a downloaded file - and therefore, what of our original metadata is retained in the file that a buyer wishes to retain in perpetuity?

 

I'm guessing all.

 

I don't have any selfish agenda here but just wondering out loud.

 

Richard.

You could find an example of where it is used and see how much gets carried through to Web use. Not a lot (actually nothing) is my expectation in most cases.

 

I would expect, and believe, Alamy replace the metadata, especially copyright/contact dedtails, for their own version.

[Richard Baker 756]

Thanks, Martin. Yes, from the one I've looked at, File Info is quite empty though who has stripped it I obviously can't gauge.

[Michael Halberstadt 64]

Stripping out all the metadata seems like a really bad idea for all involved. I'm fine with Alamy replacing my info with theirs. But removing most metadata just seems to be making a petri dish trying to culture more infringements. What I think Alamy should be doing: embed their information, a client ID and the license that was used and all that legaleze. And they should be requiring that info not be stripped by the end user Then if we found images without that info, or better yet the wrong info, like a license that doesn't encompass the actual use we'd know have more to work with.

 

I made a mockup here:

 

[Martin P Wilson 1,378]

Stripping out all the metadata seems like a really bad idea for all involved. I'm fine with Alamy replacing my info with theirs. But removing most metadata just seems to be making a petri dish trying to culture more infringements. What I think Alamy should be doing: embed their information, a client ID and the license that was used and all that legaleze. And they should be requiring that info not be stripped by the end user Then if we found images without that info, or better yet the wrong info, like a license that doesn't encompass the actual use we'd know have more to work with.

 

I made a mockup here:

 

I agree and I believe in some jurisdictions, strictly speaking, it is illegal to strip metadata but most web sites do it. When we were all on dial up saving a few bytes was useful but it is not that relevant for most people these days. Yes, I know it is for some graphic rich/video sites are not going to load noticeably faster if you remove metadata! I changed my web site software to use an image processing library (ImageMagick) that does not strip metadata (GD, the most commonly used one does) - even when the site resizes to fit the window.

 

However as I discovered when I had some advice from an IP lawyer that stripping of metadata compounds a copyright infringment and supports an argument of ill intent, at least to some extent.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Martin P Wilson

[M.Chapman 2,040]

Stripping out all the metadata seems like a really bad idea for all involved. I'm fine with Alamy replacing my info with theirs. But removing most metadata just seems to be making a petri dish trying to culture more infringements. What I think Alamy should be doing: embed their information, a client ID and the license that was used and all that legaleze. And they should be requiring that info not be stripped by the end user Then if we found images without that info, or better yet the wrong info, like a license that doesn't encompass the actual use we'd know have more to work with.

 

I made a mockup here...

 

Good idea, but I definitely wouldn't include the licence fee.

[Michael Halberstadt 64]

 

Stripping out all the metadata seems like a really bad idea for all involved. I'm fine with Alamy replacing my info with theirs. But removing most metadata just seems to be making a petri dish trying to culture more infringements. What I think Alamy should be doing: embed their information, a client ID and the license that was used and all that legaleze. And they should be requiring that info not be stripped by the end user Then if we found images without that info, or better yet the wrong info, like a license that doesn't encompass the actual use we'd know have more to work with.

 

I made a mockup here...

 

Good idea, but I definitely wouldn't include the licence fee.

 

Yes, in retrospect that was dumb. Just a invoice number perhaps. I can also imagine that the client name might be masked with a client code.

[wiskerke 3,985]

This is the embedded info from an image licensed in February to a client who has not wiped out all metadata:

(They may actually still build their website or blog by hand, not with a CMS that does the wiping.)

 

F52NGH

 

Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo

 

© Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo

 

F52NGH Minneapolis CityKid Mobile Farmers Market truck volunteers selling produce from their own farms to a diverse public.

 

Minneapolis CityKid Mobile Farmers Market truck volunteers selling produce from their own farms to a diverse public.

 

View your order summary at: www.alamy.com/Order-summary.asp?OrderID={6xxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxxxxxxE}
Your Ref:  Oxxxxx6 Our Ref: Ixxxxx0. Downloaded: 02 February 2016 Alamy Ref: F52NGH

 

Plus all the keywords and some more credit info.

 

Are you all suggesting that since then there has been a change in how Alamy ships out the files? And that since, Alamy has been stripping all metadata?

Is there any proof of this?

 

It is true that all metadata have been wiped from the zooms on Alamy, which I think is a pity.

 

wim

[losdemas 3,027]

This is the embedded info from an image licensed in February to a client who has not wiped out all metadata:

(They may actually still build their website or blog by hand, not with a CMS that does the wiping.)

 

F52NGH

 

Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo

 

© Wiskerke / Alamy Stock Photo

 

F52NGH Minneapolis CityKid Mobile Farmers Market truck volunteers selling produce from their own farms to a diverse public.

 

Minneapolis CityKid Mobile Farmers Market truck volunteers selling produce from their own farms to a diverse public.

 

View your order summary at: www.alamy.com/Order-summary.asp?OrderID={6xxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxxxxxxE}

Your Ref:  Oxxxxx6 Our Ref: Ixxxxx0. Downloaded: 02 February 2016 Alamy Ref: F52NGH

 

Plus all the keywords and some more credit info.

 

Are you all suggesting that since then there has been a change in how Alamy ships out the files? And that since, Alamy has been stripping all metadata?

Is there any proof of this?

 

It is true that all metadata have been wiped from the zooms on Alamy, which I think is a pity.

 

wim

 

I imagine that's since the big Google push a while back.  Google might regard the content in so many images as spammy otherwise (just guessing)?

[Martin P Wilson 1,378]

I do not believe or expect that Alamy strips metadata. Like us it is in their interests for images to be traceable. It is just that most web site builders and web software providers are cavalier about metadata and rarely maintain it on websites.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Martin P Wilson