Flickr and security

[Battou]

Pointless. Images uploaded to flickr firstly do not have the complete exif data displayed, and secondly don't have any exif data embedded in the images themselves. If someone then wanted a copy with exif data they'd need to manually key in the few bits that Flickr gives you.

Could you elaborate please?

Now I don't know jack squat about flicker so I could very well have missed something. I am opperating on the assumption that Flicker will keep the exif in tact like Photo Buket even if it's not read and displayed whent it is uploaded. What's more I am seeing more and more photoediting programs that are able to maintain the exif information of an image after processing. I am obviously missing something here.

 

[roadkill]

Anyone have any links on watermarking with CS3?

 

[Brutus]

I once had a picture on the net that was stolen and published by Time
magazine. Of course, they neither asked for permission nor paid me a dime.

But, at least I can truthfully say I was published by Time.

Well, I'm not surprised they didn't pay you, since it wasn't Time magazine that did it, probably just a single individual looking to get recognition for something he didn't do (not quite sure why, though).

 

[robc638]

Deviating slightly, and since it was mentioned, which is the better hosting site: Flickr, PhotoBucket, or other?

 

[table1349]

Deviating slightly, and since it was mentioned, which is the better hosting site: Flickr, PhotoBucket, or other?

I think it is a personal thing. I like Flicker for what I do. I have a closed group of people that have access to the photos. It is $25.00 a year for a pro account with unlimited uploads. It works well for my needs. I don't know about PhotoBucket, never used it. If I were marketing my stuff I think I would look at Smug Mug. More expensive but more customization on the front end. You can design your front page, different passwords for different folders etc. Kind of depends on what your needs are.

 

[mrodgers]

Deviating slightly, and since it was mentioned, which is the better hosting site: Flickr, PhotoBucket, or other?

I started with Flickr because another forum I am on has html enabled. It was real easy to post photos with the html links. But, I was looking for a bit more organization than I could do with the free account. I had already had a photobucket account for my gaming screenshots and graphic stuff, so I started using that again.

I have heard about Photobucket compressing and resizing at poor quality, but I don't upload anything above 800 pixels on the longest size, so nothing ever gets resized or compressed for me.

The one I really don't like from a viewing other's photos, is imageshack. It is incredibly slow to view photos that other people post when they have used imageshack.

 

[Battou]

I have heard about Photobucket compressing and resizing at poor quality, but I don't upload anything above 800 pixels on the longest size, so nothing ever gets resized or compressed for me.

PB's resizing is fine, I upload most every thing at around 2000 PX to a side and allow auto-resize to both 1024 and 800 do the rest. I have even uploaded full sized 3800+ with out complaint

 

[Garbz]

Well basically if you jump into this image here that I uploaded recently: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2987200523/ you will notice that the full exif information is available when viewed by flickr, as in the properties say D200 f/8 70mm flash not fired etc.

But if you download it, the actual exif data is missing. Same if you use operanda on the image displayed in the webbrowser. Although let me just say I don't have a pro account, which allows uploading of "original" sized pics. They may very well preserve the exif data.

But as we mentioned earlier if you upload a smaller version of the file people are much less likely to rip it off anyway.

 

[Battou]

Well basically if you jump into this image here that I uploaded recently: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2987200523/ you will notice that the full exif information is available when viewed by flickr, as in the properties say D200 f/8 70mm flash not fired etc.

But if you download it, the actual exif data is missing. Same if you use operanda on the image displayed in the webbrowser. Although let me just say I don't have a pro account, which allows uploading of "original" sized pics. They may very well preserve the exif data.

But as we mentioned earlier if you upload a smaller version of the file people are much less likely to rip it off anyway.

Ok, I gotchya. When the image is saved again from that location any remaining EXIF is destroyed as it pertaind to the account type you have. I should prolly tell you I tested that just to make sure I understood it.

 

[Battou]

After posting that I was curious and checked to see if this was saving process or something with flicker. After some searching I found a shot with it's EXIF intact in my PB account, Downloaded and reuploaded it. The downloaded one maintained the Exif information in full...

 

[JerryPH]

I once had a picture on the net that was stolen and published by Time
magazine. Of course, they neither asked for permission nor paid me a dime.

But, at least I can truthfully say I was published by Time.

No you can't.

When I look at that picture, it doesn't say "taken by XYZ". You should have sued and not only made profit from your picture, but protected the future rights of photographers when Time would consider stealing again.

I'm kinda amazed that you are taking it so lightly... I would be infuriated that a magazine of that prominence would blatantly steal from me... and I would not accept that.

This is why it happens so often... why should anyone pay for it, when all they need to do is steal someone else's work instead of paying a fair price to the picture's owner? The owner will never do anything about it, in fact, they'll go around all smug because they are now published... lol

 

[ksmattfish]

There is no security on Flickr. I had my photos marked copyrighted, and all of the privacy settings maxed, and Flickr apps still helped people swipe my photos for use on commercial websites. I hate big watermarks, but I've decided it's the only way to go.

Big companies understand that 99.99% of photographers do not have the resources to mount successful litigation. They can rip us off without worry: most likely they'll never get caught, and if they do there's not much we can do about it without a fair amount of money up front. As long as they play ignorant, and stop using the photo when caught they probably win.

The laws could be changed to protect the individual, but since everyone in Washington is working for the corporations the laws are being changed to help companies steal photos and other intellectual property that they "find".

 

[JerryPH]

After posting that I was curious and checked to see if this was saving process or something with flicker. After some searching I found a shot with it's EXIF intact in my PB account, Downloaded and reuploaded it. The downloaded one maintained the Exif information in full...

I believe that Flickr retains the EXIF on the original that you upload, if it is there. It removes the EXIF on any other ones that it resizes.

 

[Battou]

Ah, it should prolly be said that I am in much the same account style on PB that Garbz is on Fliker. PB does not do the same thing, it retains whatever is there at the time of upload despite resizing. As far as the non pro account goes atleast.

 

[christm]

I once had a picture on the net that was stolen and published by Time
magazine. Of course, they neither asked for permission nor paid me a dime.

But, at least I can truthfully say I was published by Time.

Did you contact them for rights payment ?