Security AGAIN!!

Tina Manley · October 16, 2008

Dear SmugMug -

With the current problems and potential demise of other portals such as PhotoShelter and Digital Railroad, many stock photographers are looking for a place to put their photos. I have enthusiastically recommended SmugMug on all of the e-mail lists for stock photographers. The replies I have gotten are all concerned with potential security problems on SmugMug. Professional photographers are especially concerned because of the Orphan Works bill that has passed the Senate and is now in the House. We are all worried that any photos we post on the internet that do not include metadata will become orphans, available for use by dishonest photo grabbers who know the way around right-click disabling and watermarking.

IF SmugMug could stop stripping metadata from our photos, I'm sure many of the photographers who are searching for a portal would give SmugMug another look. I still love SmugMug, but I am worried about security abuses.

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

Andy · October 16, 2008

Hi Tina,

Great stuff - for the record and to be clear for everyone reading this, we keep your metadata intact on your original files. But for display copies, right now, we don't - due to the fact that metadata can add a huge amount of fileweight to all the display copies. but it's in our plans to try and see about including certain added pieces of data, if a good balance can be struck between peformance, and function.

Tina Manley · October 16, 2008

Andy - I understand you are working on it, but here is one response from the stock lists:

'Well frankly that is why I dropped them. IF something is stolen, it won't likely be the original files where they left the data intact. Instead the display copies that anyone can get, and steal is where the data needs to be most. Watermarks are just too easy to get rid of and now everyone will claim orphan works (which is exactly why the bill should have never got off the ground and exactly why the big money insisted it pass) and the photographer left out in the cold. Frankly I didn't think it was cool to strip the metadata from any file for any reason unless you were the one that put it there in the first place (ie its your file) so rather than argue, I dropped them. How much file size is involved and how much performance it reduces I didn't think entered the equation. Simple you don't strip metadata. If you need to reduce anything, you reduce the display size not the metadata."

Tina

Andy · October 17, 2008

Tina Manley wrote:

Andy - I understand you are working on it, but here is one response from the stock lists:

'Well frankly that is why I dropped them. IF something is stolen, it won't likely be the original files where they left the data intact. Instead the display copies that anyone can get, and steal is where the data needs to be most. Watermarks are just too easy to get rid of and now everyone will claim orphan works (which is exactly why the bill should have never got off the ground and exactly why the big money insisted it pass) and the photographer left out in the cold. Frankly I didn't think it was cool to strip the metadata from any file for any reason unless you were the one that put it there in the first place (ie its your file) so rather than argue, I dropped them. How much file size is involved and how much performance it reduces I didn't think entered the equation. Simple you don't strip metadata. If you need to reduce anything, you reduce the display size not the metadata."

Tina

Hi Tina, thanks again for your input, and your PM. We really appreciate it.

OffTopic · October 17, 2008

I just want to add my voice to the importance of this also. I've raised this issue before, and I know it won't become a top priority unless a lot of us keep asking for it.

Tina is so right - in discussions on the stock forums, not preserving metadata for display copies is a dealbreaker for so many. Right now there are a lot of successful stock photographers looking for a home to display their work as an additional alternative. Everyone is recognizing the need to have their own site and not rely entirely on their agency portfolios. Interest in SM is high because so many of us smugmugger's love to talk about the outstanding customer service

and the ease of customization, but concern over the direction of the Orphan Works bill makes preserving metadata even more of a top priority.

Maybe at least make it optional so people who want it can opt in, knowing that there will be a tradeoff in performance? IDK, all I know is that this is a top concern for me and many others.

Andy · October 17, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

I just want to add my voice to the importance of this also. I've raised this issue before, and I know it won't become a top priority unless a lot of us keep asking for it.

I dunno - I started my day today with our attorneys discussing this very issue

Tina Manley · October 17, 2008

Andy wrote:

I dunno - I started my day today with our attorneys discussing this very issue

You may already have this information but, if you don't, it might help your trying to balance the included metadata and performance:

"Those that are using GD might want to check out Laura Cotterman's
excellent website http://www.imagemetadata.com/ as there are a couple
of "function's" she has written (and is giving away for free) that
will allow sites using the GD image processing library to retain
metadata in derivative files....

...The new Metadata Working Group, a coalition consisting currently of
Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Canon and Nokia, has said much the same
thing and has put forward guidelines on how best to synchronize
metadata between the three primary repositories used by image files;
namely Exif, IPTC-IIM, and XMP. Those wanting some additional cures
for insomnia besides the DMCA paper will find that link and a short
synopsis of this group on the Metadata Manifesto blog
(http://metadatamanifesto.blogspot.com/)."

Quoted from another list. I hope this helps and doesn't put you to sleep!

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

OffTopic · October 17, 2008

Andy wrote:

I dunno - I started my day today with our attorneys discussing this very issue

I didn't mean it that way Andy. I know you care (that's why I love it here so much).

I just meant that in other threads on other topics it's frequently pointed out that upgrades and changes need to benefit a large percentage of users, which I certainly agree with. It wouldn't make financial sense for you to do something just to make a few of us happy, so I'd hate to keep quiet and have you think it wasn't important to me also.

If none of us said anything, you wouldn't know we care. :poke

Security AGAIN!!

Comments