Copyright's missing from images uploaded!
Ferguson
Registered Users Posts: 1,345 Major grins
I was looking at other issues, and happened to notice that copyright information is not on some of my photos (i.e. in the EXIF/etc information).
Some have it, some do not. That could mean an old problem was loosing it, however...
I took an image that was missing the copyright information on SM, and replaced it by re-publishing it through the SM Plugin. It did NOT have copyright information afterwards.
I then deleted it from the collection, and published it again (so on SM it was removed, and uploaded as though new). It DID then have the copyright information.
That would appear to mean that replacing a photo is not updating some information, including the very important copyright.
AND it means at some point Smugmug was losing Copyright information in some fashion, as I include it literally in the camera, and again in Lightroom. So I never produce a JPG without it, and I apparently have a LOT of images without it on Smugmug.
It seems that anything prior to about February 2013 (sometime) lost the copyrights. Those after all seem to have it.
Did Smugmug remove copyrights up until then, and now include it?
But... I can't even fix this by marking them all to re-publish, as Smugmug is not respecting it on a replace.
COPYRIGHTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS SACRED BY SMUGMUG. WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THEM?!?!
Wait... more information....
When I look at any size other than original THE COPYRIGHT IS MISSING.
When I look at the original of the same image, the copyright is PRESENT.
Does this mean you removed them from your resized copies for some strange reason?
Please note that EXIF information IS PRESENT, just not all, and specifically not the copyright (and I realize that I'm using "EXIF" incorrectly -- whatever section of the embedded data that's in -- COPYRIGHT name).
Smugmug needs to preserve copyright indications!!!!! I won't go so far as to hint it is not legal for you to strip it (and in fact I suspect it is legal, as it's probably somewhere in your rules that you can modify them any way you want), but it is certainly not RIGHT.
Some have it, some do not. That could mean an old problem was loosing it, however...
I took an image that was missing the copyright information on SM, and replaced it by re-publishing it through the SM Plugin. It did NOT have copyright information afterwards.
I then deleted it from the collection, and published it again (so on SM it was removed, and uploaded as though new). It DID then have the copyright information.
That would appear to mean that replacing a photo is not updating some information, including the very important copyright.
AND it means at some point Smugmug was losing Copyright information in some fashion, as I include it literally in the camera, and again in Lightroom. So I never produce a JPG without it, and I apparently have a LOT of images without it on Smugmug.
It seems that anything prior to about February 2013 (sometime) lost the copyrights. Those after all seem to have it.
Did Smugmug remove copyrights up until then, and now include it?
But... I can't even fix this by marking them all to re-publish, as Smugmug is not respecting it on a replace.
COPYRIGHTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS SACRED BY SMUGMUG. WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THEM?!?!
Wait... more information....
When I look at any size other than original THE COPYRIGHT IS MISSING.
When I look at the original of the same image, the copyright is PRESENT.
Does this mean you removed them from your resized copies for some strange reason?
Please note that EXIF information IS PRESENT, just not all, and specifically not the copyright (and I realize that I'm using "EXIF" incorrectly -- whatever section of the embedded data that's in -- COPYRIGHT name).
Smugmug needs to preserve copyright indications!!!!! I won't go so far as to hint it is not legal for you to strip it (and in fact I suspect it is legal, as it's probably somewhere in your rules that you can modify them any way you want), but it is certainly not RIGHT.
0
Comments
http://www.captivephotons.com/Photography/Bowditch/i-WnBncPL/A
If you look at that image in any size other than original my name is not in the embedded information under copyright. IF you switch to original you will see that it is present.
Copyright is showing up for me in the display copy. Using FxIF extension in firefox.
Dave
In old as well as new? It shows up fine for me in images in the last 8 months or so, but not earlier. So far I've not found one earlier that showed up.
If you are interested try this. Here is a gallery from late February.
http://www.captivephotons.com/Events/Softball/FGCUSNInvite2013
Here is another just afterwards from mid-March. Same cameras, uploaded via lightroom, etc.
http://www.captivephotons.com/Events/Softball/FGCUvStetson031613
I don't think this is about how I am viewing the embedded info, I think it's missing. But if you are so inclined, please look and see if you see the same.
On the first gallery, when I look at an image in the collage it has no copyright. When I go into lightbox at any size up to "original" it has no copyright. When I switch to original and look, the copyright is there.
It seems to me that the smaller sizes built by Smugmug prior to some time in March have been stripped of copyright.
Do you see the same? Have you checked yours on earlier dates?
I am sorry but we do strip some exif from display copies at this time. We don't currently replace EXIF when an image is replaced. Please accept our humble apology for any problems that this causes you.
SmugMug Support Hero
Why in the world would you strip Copyright? Just for perspective you stripped copyright, but you retained: Did the flash fire, metering mode, whjite balance, exposure program, scene capture type. Really? Someone made a conscious decision that copyright, on a commercial photography site, was less important to retain than metering mode?
Why in the world, when an image is replaced, and you rebuild the smaller sizes, would you not replace the EXIF?
Do you consider these bugs? (It sounds like you have fixed the first??)
Are you going to fix them?
Sorry, that sounds like a rant, and maybe it is. I do thank you for the quick answer. But I would like to know if you intend to fix it?
In particular, when someone decided to stop stripping copyright (apparently earlier this year), why not go back and regenerate the EXIF from the original images and put it back?
Or at LEAST if I replace an image, honor the replacement with new EXIF information, since I may have updated it. I suspect a LOT of people finish filling in venue, location, lots of the fields after the fact and may re-upload after final edits and changes. When I REPLACE an image, it should be logically equivalent to deleting and re-uploading.
I see your copyright info.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Notice these two displays with an EXIF viewer in Chrome, how it is absent from the one you see it on, but present in the next image which I re-uploaded?
From looking with a different viewer (Irfan), it looks like the IPTC information is maintained but the EXIF information is lost. It appears (and I haven't looked at the standards so I am guessing from what his program shows) that the copyright information is in both places.
It appears the viewer I am using (and I have tried two web viewers) is showing only EXIF, but that probably Andy's is showing IPTC information in addition or instead.
So I am less annoyed if they pulled out one of two places. But still confused by the whole idea that on REPLACING a photo, one does not pull all information fresh from the new photo?!?
At least then I could easily (if not quickly) fix this, by re-publishing images.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
So you did a save-as first?
Sorry, just trying to find out if there is a more thorough EXIF (etc) viewer as a plugin that shows it.
Yes, I acknowledged in the last note it is there, just deleted from one of the two apparently redundant places it appears.
Having sat on the hot seat for a long time, any thoughts on why they don't replace EXIF when you replace a photo?
I just dragged the x3 photo to my desktop and then viewed it in Bridge.
I just replaced a photo - and my copyright notice remains in tact. Not sure what you are doing that I'm not doing but it's working afaict.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I think you misunderstand, it's not a question of it remaining intact, it is a question that if you try to replace it TO ADD such information, the absence remains intact. Replacing a photo with different EXIF information (like adding a copyright, or in this case the fact that Smugmug removed it) does NOT replace the EXIF information that Smugmug displays on its smaller images.
Apparently. At least in my trials.