It probably wouldn’t hurt to start using an EXIF editor to start putting your info in there.

It’s not a perfect solution, the data can get stripped intentionally or unintentionally, but better than nothing at the moment.

I also use the FxIF extension in Firefox to see EXIF data in image properties on the other end… if it’s there.

“How about I camp on your lawn or something for the night? Maybe break into a hotel room just for a place to sleep for the night… when I’m gone the next day, the hotel room is still there… isn’t it?”

You’re talking about physical places. It’s not the same thing. If you could perfectly replicate them almost instantaneously for virtually no cost, your strawman might stand. Scarcity makes sense to charge for; attempting to create false scarcity in order to preserve an old business model and hold back the future, not so much.

“Photographers, filmmakers, music makers, play writers, etc, should have the ability to protect their work and charge for it however which way they wish.”

They do have the right to demand payment any way they wish. They don’t, however, have a right to demand that their business model be successful, or that technology will not render it obsolete.

Robert Heinlein hit on it about 70 years ago:

“There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.”

- Life-Line (1939)

I don’t watermark my photos or put my name in the EXIF data. As far as I can tell everyone who has used my pictures has given me attribution.

My question is this: How do I prevent a scenario like this where Ms. Blue has found a fantastic photo, really wants to attribute the photographer, but can’t find out who he/she is, from happening to me?

In my own works of creation, I am not obligated to apply DRM and restrictive licensing from the start. :P My photography has only ever earned me, financially, gifts of wine, beer, and books — but it has earned me friends. This act of taking a beautiful photograph and sharing it with others has value beyond the cash I could squeeze out of it.

Also, there were plenty of meat heads in ancient Greece: haven’t you read the Iliad and Odyssey? BTW, those awe inspiring works only survived because people spoke them to each other — without royalty payments to Homer Poetry Corp. — for generations…

@Myk – After you copy it, what do you do with it? Delete it? Or do you take it and listen to or watch it? If you do, then you’re stealing it.

Hang the pirates high, then throw them to the sharks.

Culture isn’t always about getting paid.

It isn’t “taking” anything. It’s copying. And yes, there really is a fundamental difference.

Sure it’s theft. It’s taking something that doesn’t belong to you without paying for it. How about I camp on your lawn or something for the night? Maybe break into a hotel room just for a place to sleep for the night… when I’m gone the next day, the hotel room is still there… isn’t it?

If you don’t want to pay, then don’t play. Seems pretty straightforward. Photographers, filmmakers, music makers, play writers, etc, should have the ability to protect their work and charge for it however which way they wish. Meanwhile, hang all the pirates. We still hang pirates, don’t we?

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/aus/558260167.html

In a related post I recently wrote this on the National Press Phoitographers Association list:

The fundamental issue is that for all of their lives people have been
taught that intangible information is free. TV is free, radios is free,
you may pay for cable but in the mind of the public you’re paying for
the guy in the truck not the information. The recording industry and
Hollywood actually made matters worse by charging more for CD’s and
DVD’s than they did for tapes. All that did was strengthen the
perceptions that it was the media that drove the cost. As somebody who
has spend a fair amount of time studying consumers attitudes to media (I
was VP of Engineering at BitTorrent for a while) I can say with some
certainty that it’s going to be very hard to break the intangible equals
free mindset.

There is a idea floating around that micropayments are the answer.
They’re not. The problem is that a purchasing decision is still a
decision no matter how small the amount. There is a reason that cell
companies, cable companies, phone companies sell bundles, people like to
make one purchase decision and forget about it. The consumer psychology
is well understood and the people could be in the micropayment business
(eg phone companies) are moving in the opposite direction.
Micropayments work for corporations who want to pay only for what they
use, they don’t work for individuals.

All that said you can’t pay the rent with photo credits. It’s going to be interesting to see what new models emerge.

The only place I ever found that sells licenses is this site called https://www.adultimagebrokers.com/ which seems like it has totally usable stuff but a) their licenses are geared towards websites not mobile apps and b) their licenses seem geared towards selling access which I’m not really interested in doing if I can avoid it. I have emails out to them but I’m not super hopeful.

Anyways, I’m all about paying to license the images, but any ideas where something like that could come from? (joe@daverin.com if you want)

How am I supposed to think under these conditions?

(Anyone who cries “theft!” still doesn’t get that bits are copied, not taken away leaving an empty space where they used to be.)

But really, are people just not using EXIF tags as much as they should? Or are they just getting stripped that easily?