Smugmug, why are you stripping away my license terms from embedded metadata?

NY2LA

I embed the following text in the IPTC Rights Usage Terms field in all of my JPEG image files before uploading them to SmugMug:

This photo is released by [my name] under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license.

In the versions at miscellaneous sizes that you create from my original (Small, Medium, Large, etc.), you have stripped this metadata away.

annnna8888

We will be happy to take a look, but we will need a link to the photo in question. But to confirm, the display sizes we create from photos, from thumbnails to X3L, do not contain all EXIF and metadata information in order to optimize the size of the display copies and make them load faster.

Ana
SmugMug Support Hero

NY2LA

Are you sure that including all of the metadata would make that much difference in load time? It is only minor strings of text that have a negligible effect on file size. As for providing "the photo in question", it applies to all images that I have put on SmugMug, not one photo. However, since my original post, I reluctantly turned on right click protection because of this issue.

denisegoldberg

NY2LA wrote: »

...I reluctantly turned on right click protection because of this issue.

Don't be fooled, right click protection will not prevent someone from grabbing the image from the browser cache.

I don't know if this helps you at all but I just checked a couple of my photos to see if the caption I assigned in Lightroom (before exporting and uploading to smug) was retained if I did a right click save of a photo from my site. This photo - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/Fragments/A-wander-in-Boston-2015/i-8XHtbwB/A - had keywords and a caption assigned in Lightroom. If I right click save the photo and then look at the file properties I see keywords (as tags), the caption was placed in both the Title and Subject of the file properties (I didn't supply a title, it I had I believe it would have been in the title field), and I also see my copyright that was placed in the file by my camera.

I realize that the IPTC Rights Usage Terms is the right place for your statement but would it be worth putting it in the caption just so it sticks with the photo?

--- Denise

NY2LA

Dennis, I am not fooled by right click protection. I know there is more than one way that someone can grab an image despite right click protection. But those are people who consciously want to circumvent the prevention. Many times, people lift the photos rather innocently, and may put more thought into whether to do it, if they can't do it the most obvious way the first time around. And I am thinking of putting the IPTC Rights Usage Terms (the Creative Commons license) in the captions from now on. But that doesn't help the situation with already uploaded photos. I would have to use the Replace feature on every one of them, if I want it embedded in the file (not only on the SmugMug interface.).

NY2LA

Please consider myth number 9:

http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/blog/top-metadata-myths.html

Richard

You're correct that the Rights Usage field is the correct place for this statement, but since it doesn't show, you might want to try using the Copyright field in the IPTC Copyright section, which does show up on SM metadata. Not sure what length limits might apply. It's not perfect, but I think it is better than putting it in a caption. Don't know whether there's any bulk method of changing stuff that has already been uploaded and processed.

NY2LA

Richard wrote: »

You're correct that the Rights Usage field is the correct place for this statement, but since it doesn't show, you might want to try using the Copyright field in the IPTC Copyright section, which does show up on SM metadata. Not sure what length limits might apply. It's not perfect, but I think it is better than putting it in a caption. Don't know whether there's any bulk method of changing stuff that has already been uploaded and processed.

If you mean the field named Copyright Notice in Photoshop's File Info, thanks for confirming it does show up in SmugMug created image files. I should probably be using that field instead of IPTC Rights Usage Field, which may be less widely supported. However, this brings to mind, there is also a pull down menu in Photoshop's File Info named Copyright Status, providing options to select Unknown, Copyrighted, or Public Domain. I always select Copyrighted in my image files, but the SmugMug created files say Unknown (the default).

Richard

NY2LA wrote: »

I always select Copyrighted in my image files, but the SmugMug created files say Unknown (the default).

Yep, SM is stripping out the Copyright Status field. When you look at a copy of a SM hosted image in PS or LR, there's nothing in that field, hence it is reported as unknown.

NY2LA

I decided to test using the Copyright Notice field today. I thought it was going to be a nice workaround. To my horror, I discovered a worse problem in the process. When using the Replace feature, SmugMug does not create a new set of multiple sized files. It only replaces the original file. This is a colossal problem for me. My SmugMug website is a documentary, and editing the metadata is a work in progress. For over a year, I have been using the Replace feature to replace images with new metadata, and didn't realize it wasn't replacing all of the image files at different sizes.

So what happens if someone has actually edited an image (instead of only metadata) and uses Replace? I am scared to find out. I hope someone else braver than me will test it. I like having a Replace feature, but SmugMug should not offer a Replace feature at all, if it is not going to make a whole new set of image files from the new original file.

And I am left without evidence that the Copyright Notice is always included in the SmugMug created files. I am now thinking, there might be a maximum number of fields, rather than particular fields, that are included in the SmugMug created files. I hope someone else will test this too.

NY2LA

I tested how the Replace feature works, with respect to edited image data versus edited metadata, and reported my experience on a new thread here:

Replace Feature Replaces Image But Not Metadata, For Some Bizarre Reason
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=2004674

I also tested uploading totally new image files making use of the Copyright Notice field as suggested by Richard on this thread. He is correct, that particular metadata remains in the assorted display sizes created by SmugMug. Therefore, using the Copyright Notice field is a viable workaround going forward.

However, it does not solve the new problem that I have discovered, being unable to use Replace to revise the metadata accordingly in the assorted display sizes of already uploaded images.