Image security Archives - SmartFrame

How to add Content Credentials to your images

Matt Golowczynski — Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:10:18 +0000

Content Credentials allow content creators and publishers to add key details to their work, helping to improve transparency. We explain how to use them for your images and view them in those published by others.

Content Credentials are now starting to appear in a broad range of images online. They provide online audiences with information on a piece of content’s origin, along with details on any edits made, including the use of AI tools.

If you’re not already familiar with Content Credentials and want to learn more, read our complete Content Credentials guide first.

If, however, you understand the concept and now want to start putting it into practice, read on.

How to add Content Credentials on your camera

While it’s possible to add Content Credentials to images after they have been captured, embedding them from the start of an image’s life is ideal as it allows for the most complete picture of an image’s history to be developed.

That said, since this technology is still relatively new, only two cameras support Content Credentials out of the box at the time of writing.

These cameras are the Leica M11-P and the Sony A9 III. Both are relatively new and at the pricier end of the scale for models of their kind, so this option isn’t available to the vast majority of photographers today.

Nevertheless, if you have a slightly older camera, you may still be able to take advantage of this feature.

Sony’s announcement of its A9 III camera came alongside the news that owners of the A1 and A7S III would also be able to access this feature through a forthcoming firmware update – and this was released in April.

Fujifilm also recently announced that it has joined both the CAI and the C2PA, which are behind Content Credentials, and has stated that it will be using this standard in GFX and X series cameras via firmware updates.

This approach opens up the possibility that owners of other models may also receive firmware updates with the same option in the future, which could rapidly increase adoption.

The fact that Nikon included Content Credentials in a demonstration version of its popular Z9 model also suggests that the feature will be included in future Nikon cameras.

How to add Content Credentials using software

While adding Content Credentials in the camera has the advantage of embedding information into images at the very start of the creation process, you don’t need a camera that supports this feature to use it. You can start adding Content Credentials in software instead.

How to add Content Credentials in Adobe Photoshop

Content Credentials are currently in beta in Photoshop, so we expect changes over time. Nevertheless, they are still very much usable at this moment.

To get started, open an image in Photoshop and select Window > Content Credentials (Beta). A dialog box with the option to enable Content Credentials will appear on the right-hand side of the screen.

Once this is enabled, you will be able to select which details to apply, such as Producer and Edits & Activity. By default, all options should be selected, including Generative AI transparency.

By clicking on Preview, you will now be able to see what these Content Credentials will look like. These will change as you select and deselect the options above. The Actions will update as you edit the image.

Finally, to save the image with credentials attached, head to File > Export > Export As… before selecting the relevant option from the Content Credentials (Beta) section. You can choose whether to publish the Content Credentials to the cloud or attach them to the file itself.

How to add Content Credentials in Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom users can also add Content Credentials when editing images.

The options available to the user are much the same as those described above for Photoshop users, although the process of enabling them is a little different.

To get started, head to Preferences > Technology Previews, before checking the Content Credentials (Beta) Export Options setting.

Once you have finished editing the image, click on the Share icon in the top-right-hand corner and then Export, whereupon you should see a dialog box for Content Credentials.

Here, you can choose a method of appending the credentials to the image – either to the file, stored in the Content Credentials Cloud, or both – and select the specific credentials to export.

How to view Content Credentials

Not all images have Content Credentials. You can tell whether one does by checking to see whether a Content Credentials pin is found in the corner of the frame.

For this to appear, the website itself will need to support the display of this pin within the image. This is important as not all websites do.

If you’re viewing a SmartFrame, however, this is not necessary, as the SmartFrame itself contains everything it needs to display this, regardless of where the image has been published.

Clicking on this pin brings up a panel with the basic details. These will typically include the original media, the entity that signed the images, the content’s producer, and the app or device used to create the content. It may also include connected social media accounts and edits made to the image (if any).

Exactly what’s displayed depends in part on what the content producer has enabled – either in the camera or when editing, or both – and in part on what cannot be removed, such as the use of the Firefly generative AI tool in Photoshop.

Viewing additional details

The panel described above provides a snapshot of the key information attached to the image. But it’s possible to see even more detailed information if required.

At the bottom of the Content Credentials dialog box within the image, there may be an additional link that takes you to the Content Credentials website, where the image can be verified.

This link may simply be a “Verify on ContentCredentials.org” text link or a button labeled “Inspect”.

In either case, this allows you to develop a better idea of the types of edits made to the image and to see whether multiple images were used in its creation, among other things.

It also provides you with a way to quickly confirm that the image has been signed and verified on the official ContentCredentials.org site. You may wish to do this if something about the image, the CR pin, or the site on which the image has been published seems suspicious.

For most images, key details – such as its origin, the edits made to it, and so on – are easily contained and viewed within the panel described above. But with some images – and particularly composite images – it’s not always practical to view this level of detail within this panel alone.

For this reason, some SmartFrame images with Content Credentials have an additional feature, whereby the user is able to view certain details in a full-window preview mode.

This preview mode, which occupies the full size of the window in which they are viewing the image, allows them to easily view all media associated with an image, along with edits and other details, without them needing to leave the site they are on and view these on the ContentCredentials.org website.

You can see what this looks like by clicking on the CR pin in the image above. If the image supports full-window preview, it will automatically appear in this way upon a click of the pin.

While it’s still possible to visit the ContentCredentials.org site and verify the image as when a SmartFrame image has this full-window preview mode, the user may find the level of detail they require is contained within this preview.

What does the future of Content Credentials look like?

It’s common for new technologies like Content Credentials to appear and then quietly be retired some time later. However, the strong need for it to combat various threats, combined with rapid adoption by key players, means it unlikely that it will face the same fate.

Indeed, just the past few months alone have welcomed several announcements regarding Content Credentials, as well as the C2PA standard that underpins them and the Content Authenticity Initiative, from major platforms.

In February, Google announced that it was to join the C2PA as a steering committee member.

The following month, the BBC – one of the founding members of the C2PA – published its first piece of content that made use of C2PA tools.

This was followed by an announcement from TikTok that it would join the Content Authenticity Initiative and adopt Content Credentials for AI-generated content on its platform. Most recently, LinkedIn added support for images with Content Credentials.

With Meta also currently building tools to identify C2PA metadata in images posted on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, it seems certain that Content Credentials and related technologies will only grow more prominent over the coming years.

The post How to add Content Credentials to your images appeared first on SmartFrame.

Image manipulation: Why it’s a problem and what we can do about it

Liam Machin — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:45:09 +0000

Tools used to manipulate images are more readily available than ever, and that can be an issue in terms of what makes something trustworthy. So what can be done to rebuild this?

Can you guess 2017’s word of the year?

The answer to that burning question is “fake news” – thanks in large part, of course, to the US president at that time.

But the fact that we’re still debating what can be done about disinformation and misinformation years later shows just how significant this issue has become.

When it comes to social media platforms, they rely on people being able to share content freely and easily.

Consequently, such platforms must also deal with the fallout from content created and used for harm.

Although it is worth noting that most of the largest platforms are now making greater efforts to educate users on the subject, a lack of protection and limited visibility over the origin of media means these issues will persist.

If these platforms can rectify this and demonstrate that they take the safety of their users seriously, they can rebuild the trust that has been eroded over the past few years.

With the online world facing the challenge of speed vs accuracy, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the WEF’s 2024 Global Risks Report found “misinformation and disinformation to be the top risk for the world in the next two years.”

At the heart of this epidemic is image manipulation.

Out-of-context images have repeatedly caused some sense of clouded judgment and made people more susceptible to believing any false narrative that might be attached to an image shared online.

But images that have been heavily altered, or that are entirely fictitious, to begin with, pose even greater issues.

What is image manipulation?

Image manipulation refers to the act of adjusting a digital picture in some way.

Often, this is done to help create a certain creative look or to fulfill a business objective. It can, for example, be used to fine-tune details make corrections, or even create entirely new compositions.

The history of image manipulation

The use of manipulated images has a longer history than you might think. While it’s reasonable to view it as a modern issue, the use of image editing to deceive the public dates back to the 19th century.

It’s claimed that the first case of image manipulation took place in the early 1860s – and that this particular instance shaped the future of money.

Abraham Lincoln’s face was edited onto the body of another politician, John Calhoun, to “distract from his ‘gangly’ frame.” As for the connection with money, this manipulated image was believed to be the basis of Lincoln’s original five-dollar bill.

The widespread use of image manipulation became particularly noticeable during the early days of fascism.

In Nazi Germany, for example, images were frequently edited to change their meaning, often to demonize minorities.

This can also be seen in a famous photo of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, which was edited to remove the horse handler to create a sense of “heroism”.

During conflicts, photographs were used to uplift spirits, vilify opponents, and manipulate events, to evoke and exploit the emotions of the public amid the turmoil of war.

These examples only scratch the surface of image manipulation’s complex history and impact on society.

With the constant availability of online content, one might assume that people are careful not to accept everything at face value.

Sadly, this isn’t the case.

Why is image manipulation becoming more of a problem?

Easy accessibility to image editing software, together with the growth of AI tools, means this issue stands to disrupt society in a way we haven’t seen before.

According to image search engine Everypixel, the growth of AI-generated images has led to more images being created in a single year than humans have produced in over a century, with over 15 billion images using text-to-image algorithms already generated.

People have also become somewhat desensitized to some degree of image manipulation because it’s usually used in ways that the average person would deem acceptable, such as for improving profile pictures or Instagram posts.

But in recent times, fake and manipulated images have made headlines for the wrong reasons, such as the Princess of Wales’s Mother’s Day post and Taylor Swift’s AI-generated explicit images.

The rise of deepfakes is also being used to create misleading celebrity endorsements, causing scam and fraud headaches for both internet platforms and their users.

What can be done to stop image manipulation from spreading fake news?

It’s, of course, impossible to stop image manipulation completely. But when it comes to viewing these images online, there are a number of options available to help people identify manipulation and fakery.

Industry standards, comprising standardized verification, clear editing guidelines, and ethical codes, can help fight against the proliferation of fake images.

Some governments have even taken it into their own hands and implemented education in schools to help people spot fake media, despite the constantly changing nature of the issue making this more difficult.

Social media platforms play an important role too.

To address the proliferation of manipulated images, these platforms could work more closely with fact-checking organizations to verify the legitimacy of shared content.

Digital signatures, watermarking, and other image analysis tools could also be integrated directly into social media platforms to help flag potentially misleading content.

The ease with which images can be stolen is arguably the most important enabler of many of the risks associated with manipulated media.

Part of that problem is that the longstanding JPEG file has been the default format for images since the internet’s inception.

Yet, it offers no meaningful protection against theft – simply right-click and save, and from there, anyone with some image-editing know-how can manipulate images any way they wish to do so.

How does Content Credentials intend to influence the future of imagery and image manipulation?

Content Credentials give users context on the content they’re met with. This in turn allows them to make better decisions on whether or not the image can be trusted as a source of information.

The Adobe-led initiative allows for proper attribution to all images posted online, ensuring that the original image and its producer are visible, creating more transparency.

Furthermore, it’s possible to see how the image was manipulated, including editing history and any use of AI tools.

Additionally, by embedding images to news articles using SmartFrame, images can have all of the above while being protected against both drag-and-drop attempts and right-clicks, with a copyright warning thwarting screenshot attempts too.

And, as every SmartFrame is encrypted and only appears when a user is actively Browse a website, the image disappears as soon as the viewer closes the browser tab or window.

Image manipulation isn’t new – but the need to highlight when it’s used is becoming non-negotiable

The targeting of celebrities and key world events, and the content used for this, clearly show the need for increased regulation and protection.

Through clear labeling, increased education, and added accountability with repercussions, we can help mitigate the spread of misinformation and rebuild trust in the images we see online.

As James Warren, NewsGuard’s executive editor, noted in a recent Substack post: “Kim Kardashian’s enhanced glam shot on a magazine cover is one thing, fiddling in the slightest with a photo of the Israel-Hamas war is another.”

The post Image manipulation: Why it’s a problem and what we can do about it appeared first on SmartFrame.

Content Credentials: Everything You Need To Know

Liam Machin — Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:35:19 +0000

The amount of content posted online each day can make it hard to understand whether what we’re looking at is quite as it appears. In this article, we explain what Content Credentials are and how they can help.

A Newsworks study in 2022 found that more than half (52%) of those interviewed admitted being deceived by fake news at least once – and one in ten said that they “never check the reliability” of content they come across online.

The rise of misinformation and manipulated content is especially prevalent on social media platforms where anybody can post or repost anything they come across without taking the time to verify the source.

This has led to the development of Content Credentials, which are now starting to appear in online images.

What are Content Credentials?

Content Credentials are designed to help people better understand a piece of online content through the addition of tamper-evident metadata.

This metadata details more information including where a piece of content originated, whether it has been subject to any editing, and, in the case of composite images, the original images used.

Who created Content Credentials?

Content Credentials were established by the Adobe-led Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI).

They conform to the standard developed by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), a non-profit joint development foundation project founded in February 2021 by Adobe and Microsoft. The Content Credentials icon, which was introduced earlier this year, is now part of this standard.

The C2PA brings together the efforts of the CAI with those of Project Origin. Its main objective is to establish clear standards for verifying the provenance of digital content. Other members of the C2PA include Arm, the BBC, Intel, and Truepic.

Why do Content Credentials exist?

According to Andy Parsons, Senior Director of the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), Content Credentials were created to become “a universal standard and expectation across culture online.“

The explosion of AI-generated images, synthetic content, and deep fakes has meant that the world is constantly being faced with new challenges in verifying every piece of content posted online.

Content Credentials enable the creator of a piece of content to attach their identity and other information to the image. This helps improve overall transparency once it appears online.

This, in turn, means that online users are better equipped to decide whether what they are looking at is what they believe it to be.

A further benefit is that content creators are properly credited for their work, in the way they have specified, regardless of where this content is viewed online.

What do Content Credentials show?

Content Credentials can provide a range of information on a piece of content including:

details on the creator or publisher
the place in which an image was taken
any tools used in the creative process
edits made to the original content
if generative AI has been used.

Content creators can also use these to attach social media handles and web3 details.

You can see this for yourself in the image above. Simply hover over it and click on the Content Credentials pin, which reveals some of the information outlined above.

In addition to the photographer and editing history, these details also show that this is an official piece of content from the New Zealand Rugby Official Photography Library.

Why are Content Credentials important?

Content Credentials add a layer of verification to make the digital world more trustworthy and reliable for creators, users, and journalists alike.

They act as a point of provenance to help people spot and avoid misinformation across the many forms of online content.

One recent event in particular made the importance of this clear.

In May 2023, news of an explosion at the Pentagon went viral. According to the AP, this “sent a brief shiver through the stock market” and was reported by official news outlets abroad before US officials confirmed it was an image generated by artificial intelligence.

🚨 BREAKING:🚨An AI image of an explosion at the US Pentagon just caused a $500 billion market cap swing.

It was set off by a fake Bloomberg Twitter account with a Verified checkmark.

The struggle to identify the truth is getting dangerous…

(h/t @KobeissiLetter) pic.twitter.com/zrh4K2Nj2L

— Lorenzo Green 〰️ (@mrgreen) May 23, 2023

Given the growth in the usage of AI tools and the corresponding fragmented nature of regulating any rapidly evolving technology, debates around how it’s fairly regulated continue around the world.

Proactive efforts, such as Content Credentials, allow users to identify content that may have been tampered with, or that is completely false to begin with. This is thanks to the principle of cryptographic signing, which is used to append this metadata to images.

Consider for a moment any image posted online needing to go through some form of verification, one that is easily accessible and that clearly shows its history and any editing.

This system would empower journalists to easily confirm the image source, resulting in more accurate and reliable reporting.

Furthermore, ensuring that images and other digital content are authenticated by their creator and include an editing history may help to provide evidence in the case of copyright disputes.

How do I use Content Credentials?

If a piece of content has associated Content Credentials, you can access these by clicking on the “CR” pin in the corner of the image. Alternatively, there may be a specific Content Credentials link to indicate that this information is available.

In either case, a panel on the side of the image with further details will appear. Clicking on a button at the bottom of this panel will direct the user to the contentcredentials.org page, where additional details may be seen.

Can I use Content Credentials with SmartFrame images?

We are a proud member of the CAI and committed to helping the mission to create a safer and more transparent online environment. For this reason, all SmartFrame images are capable of supporting Content Credentials.

This means that, regardless of where these images are shared or viewed online, we actively help content owners maintain transparency over their images.

Furthermore, SmartFrame’s multi-layered theft protection will help keep them safe from theft and unauthorized use.

How do Content Credentials help photographers and photojournalists?

By attaching Content Credentials to their images from the moment they are captured – or at least as soon as possible – photojournalists and photographers can ensure that anyone who comes across their work has access to a transparent record of the image’s history.

While photographers may use this to attach an appropriate credit and to show a creative process, this level of transparency is particularly important for photojournalists because it allows them to establish and maintain credibility and trust with their audience.

This may also be helpful when submitting images for competitions.

There have been multiple stories in recent years concerning images that have been entered into competitions that were later discovered to be either composites or to have been at least partly created using AI tools (or in some other way to have broken the conditions of entry).

Making the creative process clear from the start would allow the eligibility of such images to be assessed upon submission.

Do Content Credentials show the same type of information in all images?

As the process by which one image comes into existence may differ from another, we should expect any appended information to vary too.

For example, an image that has not been edited in any way will not have any editing history to show. Likewise, a composite image may show all the images that have been used in its composition, whereas a conventional image will not.

Another reason that two images may show different information is that a content creator or publisher decides which categories of information to attach. Additionally, Adobe has made it clear that some Photoshop actions are not yet supported by Content Credentials.

Do Content Credentials support AI images?

Despite the many controversies around IP and other ethical concerns, Content Credentials can be applied to AI-generated images.

As with images captured conventionally, Content Credentials can be used to determine the origin of an AI-generated image and record its editing history.

Furthermore, Content Credentials can be used to identify AI images by embedding a flag or marker in the credential itself that indicates that the image was generated by an AI tool.

Are Content Credentials in Photoshop?

Yes, Content Credentials (Beta) are available to Photoshop users. As the video below shows, these can be exported with images once any edits have been made.

Are Content Credentials in Lightroom?

Yes. Adobe Lightroom users can quickly enable Content Credentials (Beta) to appear as an option when exporting images. You can learn how to do this by reading Adobe’s explainer.

Are Content Credentials in Adobe Firefly?

Content Credentials are also a part of Adobe Firefly. When you use specific features like Text to Image, Text Effects, or Generative Fill, the system automatically attaches Content Credentials to the image(s) created.

Users can also include additional Content Credentials if they wish to share extra information about the creative process and what tools were used.

Which cameras support Content Credentials?

At the time of writing, only a couple of cameras have Content Credentials built in as standard.

These are the Leica M11-P – the world’s first camera with Content Credentials – and the soon-to-be-released Sony A9 III.

Sony has, however, announced that some of its older Sony A1 and A7S III cameras will support Content Credentials via a firmware update.

Nikon also demonstrated a sample of its Z9 camera with Content Credentials built into it at this year’s Adobe MAX event, although the feature is not currently integrated into retail samples.

What’s next for Content Credentials?

Content Credentials will undoubtedly become more prominent as the CAI welcomes new members, and as a broader range of platforms and hardware support the standard.

Welcome to the newest CAI members! Today, we’re celebrating over 2,000 members, a global community committed to building and fostering a more trustworthy and transparent digital ecosystem.

🟡Learn more about the #C2PA standard or Content Credentials for certifying the source and… pic.twitter.com/NThNVgbQAf

— Content Authenticity Initiative (@ContentAuth) November 14, 2023

The CAI has also stated that Content Credentials are applicable to audio and video, which echoed similar statements in its original white paper about presenting “a set of standards that can be used to create and reveal attribution and history for images, documents, time-based media (video, audio) and streaming content”.

At the time of writing, there doesn’t appear to be much information on quite how this will apply to formats other than images.

However, Adobe has said that the icon and transparency features will soon be coming to further apps, so further details will no doubt be made available as this happens.

The post Content Credentials: Everything You Need To Know appeared first on SmartFrame.

AI image generators: Everything you need to know

Peter Townshend — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:31:44 +0000

AI image generators have exploded in popularity. But how exactly do they work? And why are some people raising concerns about their usage?

Generating images with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is something that has been widely discussed in recent years. Stories range from positive reviews of how impressively capable this new technology is to fears that it marks the beginning of the end for the photography and creative industries.

But how do they work? And what can they be used for? In this article, we take a closer look at the technology to answer these questions and explore how it has already managed to gain a bad reputation in the photography industry. But first – what exactly is an AI image generator?

What is an AI image generator?

An AI image generator, otherwise known as a text-to-image generator, is a piece of software that uses AI to create digital images from scratch using text prompts input by a human user.

AI image generators have many uses, from functional jobs such as redesigning the interior of your apartment, creative projects like producing fine art, or bespoke images for advertising to potentially more sinister uses such as creating deepfakes.

How do AI image generators work?

At the most basic level, a user inputs a number of keywords into a piece of software and a digital image based on those keywords is created.

This may sound simple, but an awful lot of technology would have been used to create and train the software.

Just like a human, a computer cannot create an image of something it has never seen. Therefore, every AI image generator has been trained on millions, if not billions, of digital images to understand what things look like. It then uses this knowledge to make an educated choice about what to draw when prompted by text keywords.

Without such training, AI image generators would not be fit for purpose. For example, if you had never seen what a cat looks like – or heard a description of one – trying to draw an accurate representation from the name alone would prove difficult. AI image generators can encounter the same problem.

For further reading, we recently wrote an article that f ocused on Google’s SR-3 AI-powered image upscaling technology, which uses very similar techniques.

Can anyone use AI image generators?

Yes and no. In most cases, you do not need to be a software engineer to use AI image generators. Indeed, there are already reports of AI image generator prompts for sale on marketplaces, which makes it even easier for users to create high-quality results.

The more sought-after technology, however, is often subject to waiting lists and paywalls. Anyone can register for access, though, so once the model has been properly tested, you should expect to see AI image generators readily available to the general public.

Examples of AI image generators

Three of the main AI image generator models are DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. They each have different ways of working and, indeed, different results. Take a closer look below:

DALL-E

Author: OpenAI

Website: https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/

Stable Diffusion

Author: StabilityAI

Website: https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-public-release

Midjourney

Author: Midjourney

Website: https://midjourney.gitbook.io/docs/

What’s the problem with AI image generators?

Arguably the main problem with AI image generators concerns the general lack of regulation around the technology.

Perhaps the most widely discussed issue is the harm that can be caused by deepfakes, although the problems with the technology are broader than this, and could bring serious issues for the photography industry on many levels.

Deepfakes

Some generators prevent a user from creating images that include celebrities or other famous faces. But as the technology develops and becomes democratized, it is impossible to deny the threat of disinformation that can arise from this.

This article by a photographer who used AI to imagine how dead celebrities would look if they were still alive today shows the remarkable possibilities. Furthermore, the video below shows the somewhat unnerving capabilities of the technology in video.

Learn more: Deepfake videos have us concerned, but are we overlooking a more sinister threat found within them?

Copyright infringement

There are two main issues around copyright and AI image generators. The first is whether the images that are used to train the software have been licensed. The second is the issue of who owns the copyright to the final image.

Image training

As AI image generators are trained using existing digital images, there is also a question over how these images have been sourced – and whether they have been properly licensed.

For example, take a look at this article from The Verge, which includes evidence of an AI image generator reproducing the Getty Images watermark. This suggests the software is being trained using images that have not been paid for.

Furthermore, the question of whether valid model releases have been obtained raises another issue around personal data misuse.

All this evidence has prompted Getty Images and PurplePort to ban AI-generated images from their platforms – and Shutterstock is following suit.

Intellectual property

Another potential problem is the question of who owns the rights to the final image that is produced.

The US Copyright Office recently dismissed a claim by an AI image creator who tried to attribute the rights to an AI-generated image to the algorithm that created it.

US law says that works can only be protected by copyright if they were created by a human. Therefore, if a computer, a monkey, or some other non-human author was responsible for it coming into existence, it is not possible for anyone to claim ownership over that work.

This is, however, a contentious issue that we would expect to continue evolving as the technology grows.

Taking work away from creators

While the above issues focus on specific pieces of AI-generated imagery, there is a wider concern over the photography and creative industries as a whole.

As this technology matures and becomes more capable, people may no longer see the benefit of paying for creative talent.

This issue of democratizing creativity is one that could have a significant impact on not just the photography industry, but also art, CGI, architecture, and much more.

Why is the AOP concerned about changes to the UK’s copyright framework?

It is perhaps unsurprising that many potential issues surrounding AI image generators have caught the attention of the Association of Photographers (AOP), a UK-based organization that promotes and protects the rights of photographers, which has recently released a statement regarding the proposed exception to the UK’s copyright bill – the Text and Data Mining Exception.

In its own words, the AOP states that: “Currently, the Text and Data Mining exception (to copyright protection) permits non-commercial purpose machine analysis of online content, provided that there is lawful access (such as a subscription). It is also limited to prevent the resale or reuse for other purposes and must be accompanied by an acknowledgment of the source.

“This new proposed Text and Data Mining exception for commercial purposes – by the UK government – undermines this by freely allowing the machine mining of all imagery published online for any use by anyone, including AI developers. It would cover both copyright works and those protected by the UK Database Rights.”

It goes on to talk about “serious economic consequences”, saying that the proposal “completely short-circuits the licensing process allowing AI developers and others free commercial access to content for which, under normal circumstances, they would have to license and pay for.”

Identifying AI bots and crawlers as being able to scrape images from creators’ websites and social media pages in an instant, the AOP concludes that this “change in UK legislation would fundamentally turn the tables on creators giving way to economically harmful competition by allowing a content ‘free for all’ and invoking an unfair machine-endeavour vs. human endeavour scenario.”

What does it all mean for the digital imaging industry?

With so much still to be decided, it is hard to predict just how AI image generators will affect the imaging industry.

With bottom lines being squeezed tighter than ever, many commercial organizations will welcome the arrival of a cheaper alternative to traditional methods. But will the appeal of truly human creation ever die? The character that comes with an artist’s unique personality and life experience is something that is impossible to emulate.

With photography, it’s easy to imagine concerns over commercial usage in genres such as fashion or fine art. But in most cases, photography is used commercially as a way to document real-life occurrences or locations, such as a wedding day, a news event, or a travel destination – and it would be extremely difficult to effectively replace this kind of photography with an AI image generator.

There is, of course, also a certain magic in capturing the beauty of a moment you have witnessed. And when you consider this, it’s difficult to imagine a world of humans without photography.

The post AI image generators: Everything you need to know appeared first on SmartFrame.

The 5 biggest GDPR fines and why they were issued

Peter Townshend — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:17:21 +0000

Here’s our rundown of the five biggest fines issued under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

GDPR was implemented in 2018 with the aim of protecting personal data and privacy in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA).

Since its introduction, there have been a number of big fines for big tech. But with Instagram racking up the second largest fine under the regulation just weeks ago, are there still lessons to be learned?

In this article we list the five biggest GDPR fines since the regulations were introduced, take a closer look at why they were issued, and explore why some believe the regulation isn’t capable of delivering on its promises.

1: Amazon – €746m

Currently, the biggest GDPR fine by far is the €746m whopper that was imposed on Amazon by Luxembourg’s National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) on 16 July 2021.

The fine was likely triggered thanks to a complaint filed in May 2018 by 10,000 people, through the French privacy rights group La Quadrature du Net. This complaint alleged that Amazon had utilized users’ private data to target advertisements without consent. A full statement from La Quadrature du Net can be found here.

In its company filings dated 29 July 2021, Amazon made clear its disagreement with the fine, saying: “We believe the CNPD’s decision to be without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.” Amazon filed its appeal in October 2021 and the case is ongoing at the time of writing.

With previous fines for British Airways and for Marriott being reduced significantly, it is possible that Amazon could still shake off this somewhat unwelcome title – so watch this space.

2: Instagram – €405m

The second biggest GDPR fine on the list is the €405m fine Instagram was hit with on 28 July 2022 by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) – Ireland’s supervisory authority for the GDPR.

A statement from the DPC outlined the reasons behind the fine, saying it marks the end of an inquiry into “the processing of personal data relating to child users of the Instagram social networking service.”

The DPC names US data scientist David Stier as the source of information that sparked the inquiry back in September 2020, noting the two main complaints as “the public disclosure of email addresses and/or phone numbers of children using the Instagram business account feature and a public-by-default setting for personal Instagram accounts of children.”

Following the referral of the case to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) due to objections from a number of Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSAs), a binding decision was published on 15 September 2022, imposing the €405m fine. The fine was accompanied by an order for Instagram’s owner, Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, “to bring its processing into compliance by taking a range of specified remedial actions.”

Instagram has since updated its settings and released new safety features. However, Reuters has reported that a spokesperson for the platform said: “Instagram disagrees with how the fine was calculated and is carefully reviewing the decision.”

3: WhatsApp – €225m

The third biggest GDPR fine was issued to Meta-owned messaging app WhatsApp in 2021 by the Irish DPC.

It was the result of an investigation that began on 10 December 2018 into what the DPC described in a statement as “the provision of information and the transparency of that information to both users and non-users of WhatsApp’s service.”

Once again, the Irish DPC faced opposition from CSAs, meaning the case was referred to the EDPB, which published a binding decision on 2 September 2021.

The BBC reported a WhatsApp spokesperson saying: “We have worked to ensure the information we provide is transparent and comprehensive and will continue to do so. We disagree with the decision today regarding the transparency we provided to people in 2018 and the penalties are entirely disproportionate.”

WhatsApp launched an appeal against the ruling on 3 January 2022. At the time of writing the case is ongoing.

4 and 5: Google – €90m + €60m

Google was on the receiving end of the fourth and fifth biggest GDPR fines when the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL – French Data Protection Authority) found it to be more difficult for French users to reject cookies on google.fr and youtube.com than it was to accept them.

Fines of €90m for Google LLC and €60m for Google Ireland Ltd – in line with the GDPR’s One Stop Shop mechanism – were imposed by the CNIL on 31 December 2021, followed by a 6 January 2022 announcement on the authority’s website to clarify the decision, saying:

“The restricted committee, the CNIL body in charge of issuing sanctions, judged that making the refusal mechanism more complex actually discourages users from refusing cookies and encourages them to opt for the ease of the ‘I accept’ button.

“The restricted committee considered that this process affects the freedom of consent of Internet users and constitutes an infringement of Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act, since it is not as easy to refuse cookies as to accept them.”

It goes on to justify the fine amounts “by the number of people affected and the considerable profits that the companies make from advertising revenues indirectly generated from the data collected by cookies.”

Notably, the CNIL includes that it had already warned Google about these breaches prior to the penalties and that this was taken into consideration when calculating the fines.

Google’s response was one of acceptance, with Reuters quoting a Google spokesperson as saying: “People trust us to respect their right to privacy and keep them safe. We understand our responsibility to protect that trust and are committing to further changes and active work with the CNIL in light of this decision.”

Is GDPR working?

Since the launch of GDPR, many have doubted its effectiveness in controlling the use of data by big businesses, especially the tech behemoths of Silicon Valley.

With this combined top five totaling an eye-watering €1.526bn, regulators seem to be flexing their muscles. But is it enough to make a difference?

Let’s take a look at the numbers.

While €746m is certainly a lot of money, it was approximately only 0.2%* of Amazon’s 2020 annual revenue, which reportedly totaled $386bn. This is far from the maximum 4% of turnover outlined on the GDPR website.

Google had it even easier, with €150m making up approximately 0.09%* of its reported $182.53bn 2020 revenue.

And with revenue of $117.9bn reported for the 2021 fiscal year, Instagram’s owner Meta had generated enough money to match its €405m fine in approximately a day and a half.*

When you consider that many of the tech giants generate a large proportion of their revenues from digital advertising (which in most cases has historically used third-party cookies to target audiences), many could argue that these fines are a small price to pay.

Furthermore, when you combine this with the fact that the long timeframes required to enforce such fines have led to significant backlogs, it’s easy to see why many question how effective GDPR really is.

Having said that, while these fines may seem small in the context of the recipients’ overall revenue, they are by no means insignificant and have certainly grabbed headlines, helping to raise global awareness of the issues surrounding online privacy and personal data.

It is also important to remember that the 4% of turnover figure mentioned above is the maximum penalty. The actual fines that are imposed must reflect the severity of the offense. After all, if every violation was met with the maximum punishment, there would be no reason for a potential offender to hold back.

Finally and perhaps most crucially of all is that, in most cases, the GDPR fines that have been imposed have brought about positive change to the way the recipients handle personal data.

With this in mind, it’s hard to deny that a digital world with GDPR is ultimately a better place than it was without it.

*Calculated using exchange rates correct on the date of the fine being issued.

The post The 5 biggest GDPR fines and why they were issued appeared first on SmartFrame.

Negative body image: Should retouched images be labeled as such?

Peter Townshend — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:43:45 +0000

A recent paper reported clear links between negative body image and retouched digital images in advertising and on social media. So is labeling retouched images the answer?

On August 2, 2022, the UK’s Health & Social Care Committee published a report that focused on the impact of body image on mental and physical health.

The report had some alarming findings – and, unsurprisingly, found that retouched digital images were recognized as a driver of negative body image. Here, we look at the broader findings of the report, the recommendations it makes, the role played by digital images in particular, and the ways in which the issue could be mitigated.

What is negative body image?

Negative body image refers to a person’s dissatisfaction with the way their body looks. This could be down to its size, for example, its shape, or its general appearance.

Looking in the mirror and feeling like you could lose a few pounds may be dismissed as a harmless passing thought by many. But in such a hyper-connected world that is dominated by unregulated digital media, negative body image has the potential to develop into a more serious issue.

For example, it has been linked to damaging physical and mental disorders, such as body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and depression.

What were the findings of the report?

The Health & Social Care Committee’s paper reported a number of concerning statistics around body image and mental health.

A 2019 study by the Mental Health Foundation, for example, found that 20% of adults felt shame, 34% felt down or low, and 19% felt disgusted by their body image at some point in the preceding year. The same study found that 13% of adults felt suicidal thoughts as a result of negative body image.

Furthermore, it was found that 21% of adults cited images used in advertising as a cause of negative body image, while 40% of teenagers said their body image issues were caused by images on social media.

In this article, our main focus is on sections 61-63 of the report, which concentrate on the potential link between negative body image and retouched digital images used in advertising and social media. The report states:

“We believe that more needs to be done in regard to the regulation of digitally altered images for advertising and social media use. We heard evidence about the potential harm from online content that promotes an idealized, often doctored and unrealistic, body image and the link to developing low self-esteem and related mental health conditions.”

The report goes on to recommend that specific action is taken, calling for new research into the impact of social media on body image dissatisfaction. It emphasizes the need to better equip new generations with skills such as critical thinking and image appraisal that can help them recognize when an image has been retouched.

It also calls for the clear labeling of retouched commercial images. “We believe the Government should introduce legislation that ensures commercial images are labeled with a logo where any part of the body,” it says, “including its proportions and skin tone, are digitally altered.”

This is a practice already adopted in Norway with the passing of a new law in 2021 that requires content creators to “ensure that the advertisement in which the shape, size or skin of a body has been changed by retouching or other manipulation must be marked.”

What role do digital images play in fueling negative body image?

With so much different content hitting us from so many different angles today, there are countless ways retouched digital images can find their way into our lives and contribute to negative body image.

However, the Health & Social Care Committee’s report quotes a number of individuals who cite social media as playing a significant role. This view is backed up by a study from Science Direct, which found that social networking is positively related to body image concerns.

With a reported 4.7 billion social media users worldwide spending an average of 2hrs 29min a day on these networks, is the connection really a surprise?

Social media influencers in particular have faced criticism for their role in this in recent years, leading to body-positive campaigns like the Dove Real Beauty Pledge and hashtags like #bodypositive and #nofilter, which have helped to put a greater focus on self-esteem and authenticity.

However, while this greater responsibility around commercial content has helped to raise awareness, research shows that the biggest driver of negative body image is actually content from friends and acquaintances.

This is concerning because, while commercial content can be regulated by consumer-protection bodies such as the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the USA’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC), personal content from friends and connections is much harder to control.

What defines a retouched image?

The idea of labeling an image to indicate it has been retouched – as the Health and Social Care Committee’s paper suggests – is certainly the right sentiment. The only problem is that defining a ‘retouched’ image is harder than it sounds.

It wasn’t long ago that many of us would regard image retouching as a practice reserved for professionals in expensive photo-editing suites, airbrushing images of supermodels on national magazine covers and high-level advertising campaigns.

Today, however, retouching images is easy and often free through software programs and countless apps that can do anything from adding eye shadow to completely reshaping facial features. These apps are simple to use and, in many cases, the technology is so advanced that it can be difficult for the untrained eye to spot.

Apps such as these are the more extreme examples of image retouching being used to deliberately alter a subject’s physical appearance, but there are many other less obvious and arguably less damaging ways to change the appearance of an image. So where do you draw the line?

For example, professional portrait photographers often spend a significant amount of time and effort using image-editing software to ensure their photographs look their best. While they may not change the physical appearance of the subject, it is likely they will make tweaks to contrast or color to enhance the overall result. So should these images be flagged as being retouched?

Even digital images straight out of the camera with no filters or subsequent editing cannot be described as truly authentic due to the processing that happens in-camera between the sensor capturing the scene and the image file being created.

Then there is the question of the hardware that is used. A lens with a moderately long focal length and a wide aperture that can achieve a shallow depth-of-field is usually the most flattering equipment setup for portraiture. Granted, this is not retouching, but could be considered a form of image manipulation. Should this also be taken into consideration?

With so many ways to alter an image, and degrees to which it can be manipulated, what is the answer?

Potential solutions

Labeling images as one or the other is a step in the right direction. But with so much grey area surrounding what constitutes a ‘retouched’ image, the more useful option would be to provide complete transparency over what edits have been made.

This can already be achieved with technology such as the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), which is currently in development. By adopting CAI technology, it is possible to automatically attach tamper-evident image provenance data to a digital image in-camera at the time of its capture, such as date, location, author, and technical information.

Furthermore, CAI can track and record every edit that is made to a digital image throughout its lifetime, from simple contrast adjustments or filters right up to compositing and more advanced image editing. It is even possible to view thumbnails of the image before and after edits were made.

Rather than having to determine whether or not each and every image has been retouched, this approach provides the user with all the information they need to make their own decision on the trustworthiness of what they see.

Learn more: Content Authenticity Initiative: What you need to know

Image-streaming technology, which has been used to display the images in the body of this article, can also be useful here.

This method of publishing images online provides built-in captions for context; permanent attribution and theft deterrents for security; and interactive features like Hyper Zoom and full-screen viewing for higher engagement. A demo that incorporates both systems has also been developed.

Conclusion

While some images used for advertising or posted on social media can be problematic, deciding on and labeling retouched images is a complicated and potentially time-consuming process that could be difficult to implement effectively.

By adopting the technologies mentioned above, social media platforms could ensure transparency when it comes to image editing and manipulation, and address some of the issues they have had to grapple with in recent years around negative body image.

They could lead the way in creating safe havens for digital imaging in which users can make their own decisions on the authenticity of the content they are viewing, and this could in turn pave the way for a whole new digital image ecosystem for the wider web in which content can once again be trusted.

The post Negative body image: Should retouched images be labeled as such? appeared first on SmartFrame.

How to future-proof your digital images

Peter Townshend — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:59:34 +0000

Ensure your photographs stand the test of time with our guide to future-proofing your digital images

There’s no doubt a photograph can be an extremely powerful thing from the moment it is captured, but the addition of time can really add something special. As years go by, even what once seemed like the most mundane of images can become remarkable.

Many of us have enjoyed looking at old photographs, traveling back in time to admire the fashion, laugh at the hairstyles, and romanticize the years gone by. But have you ever considered how future generations will do the same with your photographs?

Since the transition to digital photography, the ever-evolving nature of technology has seen photo storage go through a number of different formats, with those that are replaced quickly becoming forgotten.

For example, even as late as 2010, many photographers could still be found writing their images to DVD-Rs. However, just 12 years later the format is all but obsolete, with disk drives no longer a standard feature on most modern personal computers and the disks themselves useful as little more than coasters in many of today’s homes and offices.

With the decline of printed albums and the possible risk of format obsolescence, it is important to ensure that you have done everything you can to future-proof your digital images so they can be enjoyed in years to come. So what are the key things to consider?

Using the most accessible digital image file format

It is not just hardware that changes – software does too. Updates take place frequently – often automatically – and as software evolves, so do supported file formats.

For example, we have recently seen the introduction of the HEIC file format on Apple devices. This proprietary image file format was introduced with the iOS 11 update and is the only format used by iPhone and iPad cameras operating on that system or later.

This evolution of file types presents two concerns. On one hand, as more are introduced and those that have been superseded become less common, there is a danger the latter could slip into obsolescence.

On the other, new file formats such as HEIC, which has limited support outside Apple’s ecosystem, restrict wider compatibility and could potentially cause problems in the future. For example, while unlikely, there is a possibility that in 50 years’ time Apple may no longer exist.

Learn more: Image file formats: Which is best and how to convert between formats

For this reason, where possible, it is a good idea to save your most treasured photographs in a format that is widely accessible and compatible across hardware to ensure it will stand the test of time.

Most smartphone cameras do not offer the option to choose what file type is used, although it is relatively easy to convert files after taking them using photo-editing software or online converters.

Shooting Raw

If you’re using a mirrorless or DSLR camera, you will have the option to take photos as Raw files in addition to standard JPEGs. This option is also available on more premium compact cameras and an increasing number of smartphones.

As the name suggests, a Raw file contains all image data captured by the camera’s sensor in its entirety, without the usual processing. This data is also typically losslessly compressed or uncompressed, which helps to preserve maximum quality.

The advantage of this is that, by using a Raw file as your starting point, it is possible to create most other image file types with the highest possible quality. For this reason, it is one of the most futureproof image file formats.

That said, even Raw files are susceptible to the unstoppable evolution of the digital world, and camera manufacturers tend to offer different formats from one another, from Canon’s CRW, CR2, and CR3 files to Nikon’s NEF and NRW files and Sony’s ARW, SRF, and SR2 files.

As specific cameras and their corresponding Raw files grow older and less common, there may come a time when photo-editing software simply stops supporting them. In an effort to combat this, Adobe created the DNG format.

What is a DNG file?

A DNG or ‘Digital Negative’ file is an open standard for the Raw file format. It was developed by Adobe and is designed to provide universal compatibility across hardware and software providers.

Not only does this make DNG files future-proof but they are also smaller, so they take up less storage space.

While this sounds like the perfect file-storage solution, the problem with DNG files is that they have not enjoyed widespread adoption. While some cameras, such as those manufactured by Leica and Pentax, can write DNG files natively, many still use their own specific Raw file formats.

It is, of course, possible to convert Raw files to DNGs before archiving, but this can be a time-consuming addition to already busy workflows. Nevertheless, many would argue that this is a small price to pay to ensure the most future-proof image file format available.

Employing an effective digital image filing system

A digital image archive is only as good as its filing system. That’s why it is important to ensure that your images are appropriately labeled and arranged in a way that is easily accessible.

What constitutes an easily accessible filing system is entirely dependent on the collection of images and your own personal preference.

A good way to approach it is to start at the end. Consider your future self, searching for an image. How would you begin that search? By date? By location? By genre?

Alternatively, think of a filing system you have used in the past that you have found most intuitive and replicate that.

Another thing to remember is to always attach and preserve accurate metadata to the images you take. This will ensure you always have a reliable record of when, how, and even where each photo was taken (provided your camera supports geolocation and the feature is activated).

Choosing reliable digital image storage

In a study carried out by the Library of Congress into the longevity of information stored on CDs, almost 10% of disks tested failed within 25 years of their manufacture, when subjected to an accelerated aging process designed to simulate this length of time.

Given that the first mainstream digital cameras were released in the late 1980s, it’s startling to consider how many treasured memories are tucked away on disks at the back of cupboards that are in genuine danger of disappearing forever.

For this reason, it is important to ensure your photo storage stays up to date. Below, we offer some ways to ensure yours is as future-proof and dependable as possible.

Cloud storage

Probably the most well-known and convenient form of digital image storage is cloud storage. Cloud storage refers to storage space that is located away from a physical device you own, and accessed via an internet connection.

A big advantage of cloud storage is that, in many cases, it backs up your images in real time, as soon as they appear on your device. This eliminates often tedious periodical manual backups.

Popular cloud storage solutions include Dropbox, Google Drive, SmartFrame, Microsoft OneDrive, and Apple iCloud.

While cloud storage does offer convenience, it is worth remembering that the space is only yours for as long as you can pay the subscription fee.

External hard drive

Another option is to create a backup of your photos on an external hard drive, which can either replace or complement cloud storage. The two most popular forms are solid state drives (SSDs) and hard disk drives (HDDs), and both of these have specific advantages over the other.

While SSDs are the most reliable, they do come at a cost, so many people opt for the more affordable HDD option instead, which comes in a variety of capacities to suit most requirements.

External hard drives are more expensive than cloud storage in the short term, but it is a one-off payment compared to an ongoing subscription. Additionally, they offer the added security of being offline, keeping you in complete control of their whereabouts.

While external hard drives do come with many advantages, remember that they are physical objects – some with moving parts – and are therefore susceptible to wear, damage, and malfunction.

Second backup

A great way to protect yourself against the unexpected loss of your digital image archive is to create a second backup.

One hard drive failure is possible, but the chance of it happening twice is naturally far slimmer.

It is also well worth considering storing the second backup in a different location to the first, as this can protect against burglaries, fire damage, and similar issues.

RAID storage

For the ultimate reliability, consider a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) storage setup. A RAID device is made up of a number of different individual hard drives that are connected using disk mirroring or disk striping to allow photographers to write their digital images to multiple different hard drives simultaneously.

This setup not only improves performance but also increases fault tolerance to maximize reliability.

Printing

Finally, while the world we live in is becoming increasingly digital, it would be remiss of us not to mention the good old-fashioned photographic print.

Granted, a photographic print does not provide the option to produce high-resolution copies, but it can be a great way to physically back up your memories.

Of course, with the average person taking hundreds, if not thousands of photos a year – and keen photographers likely to take considerably more – most of us will not have the physical storage space to print every photo.

However, by being selective, it is possible to create a collection of your most treasured memories that will last a lifetime, regardless of future advances in digital storage technology. After all, the healthy human eye will always be able to see a printed photograph.

The post How to future-proof your digital images appeared first on SmartFrame.

Do you own the copyright to a photo of yourself? Probably not – and here’s why

Joel Miller — Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:26:47 +0000

Following a number of cases in which celebrities have been sued for posting photos of themselves on social media without permission, we explore the rules around this aspect of copyright law

Our recent article on the rules around posting photographs of other people on social media explained the various restrictions that different platforms imposed. But when it comes to posting photos of yourself, what’s actually allowed?

Believe it or not, being the subject of a photograph doesn’t necessarily mean you own the rights to it. Indeed, there has been a flurry of cases in recent years in which high-profile celebrities from the worlds of sport, music, and reality TV have found themselves in trouble after posting photos of themselves to social media without permission from the copyright holder.

Here, we take a closer look at the rules, list some specific examples of subjects being accused of copyright infringement on social media, and discuss ways in which all parties can protect themselves.

Do you own the copyright to photos of yourself?

Not necessarily. While privacy laws were put in place to protect the subjects of photographs, copyright laws are designed to protect the creators. As explained in the USA’s Copyright Act of 1976 and the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the copyright to any photograph, regardless of who or what it features, falls by default to the person who took it.

The main exception to this is when there has been some kind of contractual agreement beforehand, such as when an individual takes photographs during their employment. This could be a photographer who is shooting on behalf of a commercial organization, for example, or a staff photojournalist working for a newspaper.

While there are some exemptions, listed for the US here and the UK here, it is safest to assume that unless a subject of a photo has been assigned the copyright – or indeed, the photo is a selfie – they need to seek permission from the copyright holder before they can publish it.

Learn more: Copyright and images: What you need to know

If asked, it is unlikely that your best friend will mind you using a photo they took of you as your personal profile picture. On the contrary, they will probably be quite flattered. The same could be true even for a professional who took your photo at a relative’s wedding. Many photographers will simply request that they be credited.

Problems arise in the eyes of the photographer – and the law – if subjects use the images for commercial gain without prior permission. If there is evidence to suggest a photographer has lost earnings from such action, they will likely seek reimbursement.

Photographer vs subject copyright infringement case examples

Here are a few recent examples of image owners filing lawsuits against subjects for publishing photographs of themselves without permission.

Robert Barbera sues Dua Lipa

New York-based photographer Robert Barbera is currently suing British singer Dua Lipa for allegedly publishing photos he took of her in 2018 without his permission.

The photographs were posted to the singer’s Instagram page in 2019. Barbera argues that because the page is used to promote Lipa’s music and brand, his work benefited her financially.

Barbera is therefore seeking actual damages, disgorgement of all profits linked to the infringement, and court costs.

Both parties have form. Lipa faced a similar case brought by Integral Images in July 2021, while Barbera has previously filed lawsuits against Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber.

The case is ongoing.

Backgrid sues Lisa Rinna

Photo agency Backgrid brought a copyright infringement case against reality TV star Lisa Rinna in June 2021, claiming she published photographs they own of her without its permission.

The photographs, which were taken by paparazzi photographers represented by Backgrid, were posted to Rinna’s Instagram account. At the time, Rinna had 2.7 million followers.

Backgrid launched a legal campaign demanding $1.2m in statutory damages, claiming loss of income. Rinna responded by asking the judge to dismiss the case, saying Backgrid “effectively weaponized the Copyright Act to augment its income.”

The two parties have reportedly now settled with the court, avoiding the need for a public trial.

Steven Mitchell sues LeBron James

Sports photographer Steven Mitchell sued LA Lakers basketball player LeBron James for using a picture he took of James dunking the ball against the Miami Heat in 2019.

The suit was filed in March 2020 against both James and his companies, Uninterrupted Digital Ventures and LRMR Ventures LLC, which Mitchell says manage the player’s Facebook page.

According to court documents, Mitchell was seeking profits made from the Facebook post, or $150,000 for every time James used the image.

Interestingly, James responded by filing a countersuit against Mitchell for $1m, arguing that Mitchell was unlawfully using photographs of James on his website to promote his business.

In the end, both parties reached a settlement outside of court that resulted in the closing of both lawsuits in February 2021.

Why does this keep happening?

The above cases are just a small selection of recent examples. Celebrities such as Kendrick Nunn, Khloe Kardashian, Gigi Hadid, and Emily Ratajkowski have all found themselves in similar situations. But why does this keep happening?

Arguably the biggest reason for the increase in cases like this is the free-sharing nature of social media, which provides access to enormous audiences that are often completely out of the publisher’s control. When combined with increasingly blurred lines between editorial and commercial content, you have a recipe for litigation.

At the heart of the problem sit the insecure image formats that are used online. Formats like JPEG, PNG, GIF, and others can easily be copied and redistributed with minimal effort.

This lack of protection leaves the images open to theft, but it is important to remember that not all theft is deliberate.

The fact that these images can be so easily copied and misappropriated means that users unfamiliar with copyright law are often stealing them without even realizing they are doing anything wrong.

Preventing copyright infringement

Several measures can be taken to protect both parties, such as watermarking, downsampling, and adding copyright information to image captions or metadata.

However, none of these offer a comprehensive solution that finds the right blend of strong protection and compelling presentation.

For example, effective watermarking and downsampling sacrifice image quality by either obscuring the image or reducing its resolution, while standard captions are not permanently attached to the image, and metadata can be easily deleted – if it is ever actually seen in the first place.

The most comprehensive solution out there is the use of image-streaming technology. In a nutshell, it is a new way to display images online that provides a more secure and engaging alternative to the current file formats.

With image streaming, the content owner uploads a high-resolution image file to a secure central server and streams it to websites using an embed code – much like embedding a YouTube video.

This makes it possible for an image to appear on unlimited web pages without a single copy being made.

Each image is displayed in high resolution with interactive features such as multi-level zoom and full-screen viewing while maintaining fast page-loading times. This creates the perfect balance between quality, security, and user experience.

If fully integrated, image streaming could revolutionize social media networks, providing a safer and even more engaging place to connect. Below is a rundown of how the technology can benefit all parties involved.

Benefits to content owners

For content owners, there are a number of benefits when using our technology starting with full distribution control over their images, allowing them to monitor and manage where their content appears across the web.

Through a comprehensive list of URLs, owners can easily track unauthorized use and promptly block domains whenever needed.

As well as that, our theft protection features make it significantly harder for images to be stolen, with measures against right-clicks and screenshot attempts.

Permanent attribution is ensured through embedded captions and credits, guaranteeing that images are always correctly attributed, regardless of where they’re shared.

Lastly, image analytics are provided to give the creators valuable insights into viewership metrics such as detailed data on image views and their origins.

Benefits to content sharers

For content sharers, our platform offers customizable deterrent messages triggered by right-click or screenshot attempts.

These messages inform users about copyright protection and direct them to the terms and conditions of sharing, educating them on legal sharing practices and preventing unintentional theft.

Like content owners, sharers benefit from permanent attribution, as embedded captions and credits accompany images wherever they’re shared, ensuring proper crediting and contextual integrity.

Benefits to social media platforms

By streaming every displayed image from a single source file, social media platforms can better police and trace images back to their origin, making it a more manageable task and enabling swift action if necessary.

Our controlled distribution options, including optional sharing buttons, help platforms maintain exclusivity over shared content, ensuring images remain within the intended platform ecosystem.

Calls for changes to the law

Following her experience, Emily Ratajkowski wrote an article for The Cut that raised questions about the rights people have to photographs of themselves. Her view is shared by other celebrities such as Snoop Dogg and Gigi Hadid who have both called for changes to the law.

Copyright law has, however, been designed to protect the creator, so image owners may argue that any exceptions could lead to abuse, especially if the image is in the public interest.

Final thoughts

Whatever the law says, image formats that are currently used online can easily leave all parties unprotected against image misuse, whether deliberate or not.

With this in mind, we believe the main focus should be on protecting those at risk by educating everyone involved on what is permissible and what isn’t, while also preventing images from being stolen in the first place.

The post Do you own the copyright to a photo of yourself? Probably not – and here’s why appeared first on SmartFrame.

Counterfeit goods online: How big is the problem and how can you combat it?

Robert Sewell — Thu, 12 May 2022 09:55:54 +0000

The internet has brought great opportunities for retail, but it’s not all positive. We look at the growth of the counterfeit goods market and how retailers can protect themselves.

The growth of online shopping has been steady for a number of years, and with the global pandemic introducing many consumers to the convenience of e-commerce in everyday life, those numbers are now higher than ever.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) reported that 70% of Europeans bought something online in 2020. US e-commerce sales, meanwhile, are projected to exceed $1tn in 2022 and to make up nearly 22% of total retail sales by 2026.

Such figures show the extensive reach, growth, and value of the e-commerce market, but where there is great value, there is inevitably the risk of bad actors – in this case, from the burgeoning online counterfeit goods market.

How big is the counterfeit goods market?

According to recent figures, the value of the global counterfeit goods market was $449bn in 2019 – larger than the entire economy of Ireland.

Furthermore, in March of the same year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported that trade in counterfeit and pirated goods makes up 3.3% of global trade and stated that this figure was continuing to rise.

These are startling figures – and when you consider the potential impacts the fake goods market can have on economies, businesses, and everyday people, they become even more concerning.

What proportion of the counterfeit goods market is traded online?

While it is difficult to provide a definitive figure, a joint EUIPO-OECD study found that between 2017 and 2019, over 50% of counterfeit goods seized on entry to the EU were related to online transactions.

This could be seen as an indication of the potential overall scale of the problem. The knowledge that it is this significant online certainly makes sense when you consider that largely unregulated digital environments allow criminals to better maintain their anonymity and remain as elusive as possible to the authorities.

What is the impact of counterfeit goods on businesses?

The effects of IP theft and counterfeiting on businesses are huge. In 2020, global losses resulting from the sale of bogus goods amounted to €26.3bn in the clothing sector alone.

But while the sale of fake products at cheaper prices can have a big impact on bottom lines, the wider issue is the effect it can have on a brand’s reputation.

Counterfeit goods can lower customer satisfaction and erode brand value. For example, if a consumer receives a product they believe is genuine, they will expect a certain level of quality. Therefore, if that product is a substandard fake that arrives faulty or fails shortly after purchase, they will understandably be disappointed.

Research shows that 77% of consumers regularly read reviews when researching local businesses and that only 3% would consider buying from a business with an average rating of two stars and under.

In a marketplace where reviews are this powerful, dissatisfied customers can be particularly damaging to a brand’s reputation.

Additionally, businesses could find themselves wasting time and resources dealing with undeserved complaints and even making unnecessary refunds.

Learn more: Brand protection: The problems and solutions around keeping your brand safe online

What is the impact of counterfeit goods on consumers?

From a consumer’s point of view, counterfeit goods can present a tempting opportunity to buy expensive items at a fraction of their typical retail price, but this is often a false economy.

Rock-bottom prices usually go hand in hand with rock-bottom quality. This means it is likely that counterfeit items will need to be replaced long before their genuine equivalents would, which ultimately means higher costs in the long term.

The negative impact of fake goods isn’t just financial. In many cases, it can also pose a serious health risk.

One example is the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals, which the EUIPO and OECD estimate is worth up to $4.4bn (and, according to the World Health Organization, has harmful effects in every region in the world).

Ineffective or weakened pharmaceuticals can leave ailments untreated or contribute to drug-resistant infections, while unknown ingredients could provoke unexpected side effects, allergic reactions, and, in some cases, even death.

Another example is electronic goods. A report from UK charity Electrical Safety First states that faulty electrical products are the cause of more than 7,000 house fires a year in the UK. The report goes on to state the results from tests of a number of counterfeit products, including phone chargers and hair straighteners, many of which were found to have posed a serious safety risk.

Finally, an often overlooked negative impact of fake products is that of privacy. There are reports of fake software updates and cases of Android phones being imported from the gray market with malware pre-installed, both of which are designed to expose a user’s personal data to fraudsters.

What is the impact of counterfeit goods on society?

There are many implications that counterfeit goods have on a country’s economy, and the most obvious of these is the loss of tax revenue. Because revenues bypass official channels, governments lose funds from value-added tax, corporate income tax, and personal income tax that could otherwise be invested for the good of communities.

One OECD paper reported that in 2016, forgone tax revenue from the UK retail and wholesale sector amounted to £3.1bn. The same paper stated that at least 86,300 jobs were lost due to counterfeiting and piracy.

Other knock-on effects include an increase in the prices of legitimate products, as brands try to recoup the billions of dollars of global losses, and the aforementioned dangers to public health.

There is also a major humanitarian issue to consider. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) identifies clear links between counterfeit goods and transnational organized crime networks, stating that the sale of fake products could be connected to the trafficking of drugs, firearms, or people.

The role of images in the online counterfeit goods market

Before the days of e-commerce, it was possible to hold, inspect, and even test the product you were buying before handing over your money. However, in today’s digital environment, all you have to go on is the presentation of the website, the description of the item, and most importantly of all, the images used.

As it currently stands, anyone can go to a brand’s website and make copies of every official image they can find using a right-click, drag-and-drop action, or a screenshot. Using these images, they are able to create highly believable online product listings.

Possibly the most common place where fraudsters list their bootleg products online is e-commerce marketplaces. It is relatively quick and easy to set up a seller profile on one of these websites and, in doing so, criminals can gain fast access to a truly global market.

Alternatively, counterfeiters will often build an entire website that’s little more than a clone of an official site. By copying logos, matching brand colors and typefaces, and most importantly of all, using stolen official product photography, these websites can be astonishingly convincing.

How to combat the sale of counterfeit goods online

The big players in e-commerce have measures in place to stop the sale of counterfeit goods on their platforms. For example, eBay’s VeRO program and Amazon’s investment in AI to help weed out the fakes.

However, many believe it is too little too late, with Birkenstock having already left Amazon.com, and Nike having withdrawn as a first-party vendor from Amazon worldwide, each due to concerns over counterfeiting.

Preventing image theft

While any efforts to tackle the problem of counterfeit goods online are of course well-received, prevention is often better than cure.

A highly effective step towards achieving this is for brands to protect their images from theft at source. After all, the fake websites and listings mentioned above would be far less convincing without the use of official product photography.

By streaming images instead of displaying them in formats like JPEG and PNG, brands can ensure there is only ever one high-quality copy of each product photograph online.

For example, each of the images you can see in the body of this article is being streamed. This means they are protected from theft and can be displayed on an unlimited number of URLs without a single copy being made. It works in a similar way to embedding a YouTube video.

It is even possible to monitor where an image appears and control its distribution by preventing unwanted domains from embedding it. Furthermore, by attaching captions and credits at source, which will follow the image wherever it is embedded, it is possible to ensure the image always appears in context.

By preventing bad actors from stealing and repurposing valuable product photography, there’s no doubt that a counterfeiter’s job becomes much more difficult.

Conclusion

The online counterfeit goods market is undoubtedly a big issue for brands, consumers, and governments around the world. There will never be a quick fix for a problem of this scale, and indeed no single solution. However, by making changes to the way in which products are promoted, and protecting a brand’s assets at the same time, it could be possible to restrict these criminals’ ability to appear legitimate.

The post Counterfeit goods online: How big is the problem and how can you combat it? appeared first on SmartFrame.

How is AI regulated around the world?

Peter Townshend — Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:55:03 +0000

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools develop quickly and this has left many unanswered questions about the rules around their usage. In this article, we examine how these tools are currently being regulated

AI has always attracted plenty of controversy. Tools that in some way make use of AI are currently being used by the biggest tech companies for a multitude of purposes, and as a result of this relatively unchecked usage, countless very real concerns exist across the board.

One example is AI in imaging, which has seen significant news coverage in recent months. There have been concerns around copyright, such as the potential threat that AI super-resolution technology could pose to the security of image assets, as well as the question of how AI-generated images should be attributed.

Privacy in AI imaging has also become a hot topic, with the State of Texas suing Facebook in February 2022 for the misuse of facial recognition AI technology. Furthermore, Getty Images implemented an industry-first model release in March 2022 that protects the privacy of a subject’s biometric data from AI technologies.

With such scattered activity surrounding the regulation of this fast-developing and often complicated area, it can be hard to keep up with exactly where you stand when it comes to the regulation of AI, whether you’re an owner, developer, or user of the technology.

Below we provide an outline of EU, UK, US, and Chinese AI regulations, along with links to this and other AI regulations around the world.

AI regulation in the EU

The EU was the first of the big global players to draft a regulatory framework for governing the development and use of AI. It has been developed as part of the EU’s approach to artificial intelligence, which focuses on ensuring excellence and trust in AI.

The EU AI Act was first published in April 2021 and describes its aim as ensuring AI applications reflect EU values and protect human rights. As such, the law splits AI applications into four areas of risk: minimal risk, low risk, high risk, and unacceptable risk.

Technology deemed to pose an unacceptable risk includes any systems considered by the EU to be “a clear threat to the safety, livelihoods and rights of people” and would be subject to an immediate ban.

High-risk applications would have strict rules imposed, while limited-risk applications would need to adhere to specific transparency obligations.

Systems that are deemed to pose minimal or no risk are allowed to be used freely. Examples provided by the EU of this type of system include AI-enabled video games and spam filters.

Critically, the EU AI Act has been designed to evolve with the ever-changing nature of AI technology. As such, the rules would be adaptable according to how the technology develops. This means providers would need to perform ongoing assessments to ensure they are continuing to work within the law.

AI regulation in the UK

While the UK Government has not yet released a legal framework, it has laid out a 10-year National AI Strategy for developing the technology within its borders.

In its own words, the UK Government seeks to position its territory as “the best place to live and work with AI; with clear rules, applied ethical principles and a pro-innovation regulatory environment.”

The first major step in the UK’s attempts to become a global voice of authority on AI regulation came by way of a roadmap to an effective AI assurance ecosystem. This detailed document sets out the Government’s plan to, in its own words, create a “thriving and effective AI assurance ecosystem within the next five years.”

This was followed by the announcement of a new AI Standards Hub in January 2022. This government initiative will be piloted by The Alan Turing Institute, the British Standards Institution (BSI), and the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), and its stated aim is to provide an online resource for educational materials and practical tools designed to help organizations “develop and benefit from global standards.”

While all of this is still in its early stages, these efforts show that the UK is certainly serious about establishing itself as a global authority on AI. Whether or not it achieves that goal – and exactly what it will look like – remains to be seen.

AI regulation in the USA

While there is currently no regulation in place at the federal level in the US, there has been a lot of activity across various government departments that aims to address concerns around AI.

For example, the Federal Trade Commission wrote a blog post advising companies on how they should operate fairly in the age of AI, which hints at future rules. Also, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an Initiative on Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness to ensure AI used in the employment process adheres to human rights laws.

However, the most recent and decisive step saw Congress instructing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), part of the US Department of Commerce, to work with public and private sectors to develop the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF).

This framework takes recommendations from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and NIST’s own paper US Leadership in AI: A Plan for Federal Engagement in Developing Technical Standards and Related Tools to create guidelines that will, according to NIST’s website, help “improve the ability to incorporate trustworthiness considerations into the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI products, services and systems.”

All things considered, while the US’s overall position seems somewhat fragmented, there are sure signs it is taking steps towards overarching national regulation. Indeed, with the diplomatic challenges the EU faces in finding agreement from all member states, it could end up overtaking the EU AI Act in its implementation.

AI regulation in China

While progress in the EU, the UK, and the US seems to be picking up pace, progress in China has moved significantly faster, with laws regulating AI coming into force on March 1, 2022.

The Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions (translated text available here), created by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), introduced new rules on the use of algorithms to make recommendations.

These are overarching regulations that target all forms of algorithms designed to provide information to users. However, the following specific algorithmic recommendation technologies are mentioned: generative or synthetic, personalized recommendation, ranking and selection, search filter, and dispatching and decision-making.

The rules aim to safeguard national security and social interests, with a particular focus on combating the dissemination of disinformation and preserving the safety of minors and the elderly.

The above translation describes its purpose as aiming to “carry forward the Socialist core value view, safeguard national security and the social and public interest, protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, and stimulate the healthy development of Internet information services.”

While China’s AI regulations may not be mirrored by the west, there’s little doubt that governments around the world will be paying keen attention in the coming years.

AI regulation around the world

This article has focused on the activities of a few of the world’s biggest regulatory superpowers, although efforts to regulate AI are going on within many territories around the world.

This dashboard from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a useful resource for finding out the current state of play in territories around the globe, listing over 700 policy initiatives and strategies from over 60 countries and territories, plus the EU.

The future of AI regulation

While there is plenty of activity concerning AI regulation around the world, at this early stage it is impossible to say exactly how things will look moving into the future, especially when dealing with such fast-moving technology.

Indeed, the ever-evolving nature of AI and the resulting fluidity of the proposed regulation makes it very difficult to predict the future.

Granted, there is a clear synergy across all proposals in their aim to protect common values, prevent disinformation, and shield the most vulnerable in society from harm. But it’s important to remember that we are a long way from global regulation, and when dealing across borders, cultures, and governments, there is always an element of subjectivity.

With this in mind, whether you are using AI or developing it, in such a hyper-connected digital arena it’s essential to familiarize yourself with the rules of the territories in which the technology was created.

The information contained in this article is intended to be used and must be used for informational purposes only and does not in any way constitute professional legal advice. If you are unsure of the law, always take independent legal advice from a professional.

The post How is AI regulated around the world? appeared first on SmartFrame.